Cruz is obviously just trying to lure people into a false sense of security before he stabs them and sends encrypted messages to the police and newspapers
There's a Trump rally happening tonight about 45 min way from where I live (Poughkeepsie, where I live up in the Hurley-Woodstock area). Should be interesting. There are 3-4 groups going to protest there. Although the thing that most annoys me is that they are closing a bunch of roads for the rally.
It's fair enough to close roads. While annoying, it's something that gets done for any major event like a parade, big sports fixture or village fete, and it's not a special privilege for Trump.
And of course funding it the problem. If congress spent half the time writing laws and getting funding to help this sort of thing they spend with riotous indignation, they wouldn't happen.
And of course funding it the problem. If congress spent half the time writing laws and getting funding to help this sort of thing they spend with riotous indignation, they wouldn't happen.
We already have disclosure requirements for real estate agents, home sellers and contractors/renovation companies to notify residents/owners/buyers that all homes/buildings built prior to 1978 may contain lead based paint and to disclose any information/knowledge of lead based paint in the residence/building. Congress doesn't have the right to enter the 2.000.000+ homes in the US that might have lead paint in them, test all the paint and pay to have it removed/replaced. If you buy or rent a house that was built before 1978 then you've been informed of the risk of lead paint, what you do about it is your personal choice. The federal govt can't forcibly repaint private residences for the sake of the children.
And of course funding it the problem. If congress spent half the time writing laws and getting funding to help this sort of thing they spend with riotous indignation, they wouldn't happen.
We already have disclosure requirements for real estate agents, home sellers and contractors/renovation companies to notify residents/owners/buyers that all homes/buildings built prior to 1978 may contain lead based paint and to disclose any information/knowledge of lead based paint in the residence/building. Congress doesn't have the right to enter the 2.000.000+ homes in the US that might have lead paint in them, test all the paint and pay to have it removed/replaced. If you buy or rent a house that was built before 1978 then you've been informed of the risk of lead paint, what you do about it is your personal choice. The federal govt can't forcibly repaint private residences for the sake of the children.
You appear to have misunderstood. People apply for grants, the government doesn't force it on them.
jmurph wrote: I support the forcible repainting of dangerous houses. We must eliminate all the hostile and seditious colors!
Seriously, though, how is this even an issue?
Pretty easily an issue if you understand the effects that lead poisoning has on people. More importantly and specifically the effects on children. It also disproportionately effects poor people who live in cheap housing where slum lords to not follow the letter of the law.
Prestor Jon wrote: Congress doesn't have the right to enter the 2.000.000+ homes in the US that might have lead paint in them, test all the paint and pay to have it removed/replaced.
If you buy or rent a house that was built before 1978 then you've been informed of the risk of lead paint, what you do about it is your personal choice. The federal govt can't forcibly repaint private residences for the sake of the children.
What if your neighbor refuses to care for the lead in the paint that saturates his walls?
So Sanders has taken up the gauntlet that Politico threw down in regards to the Clinton campaign taking money/donations disproportionally from the Hillary Victory Fund (supposed to be disbursing $ "down line" to help other Dems) to the Hillary for America fund (her official campaign fund).
Sounds all too fishy to me...but not surprising given her party-darling status.
Spoiler:
The Bernie Sanders campaign issued a blistering statement accusing Hillary Clinton’s campaign of circumventing federal campaign finance regulations.
In an official letter to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Sanders’ campaign attorney Brad C. Deutsch accused the Hillary Clinton campaign of using a joint fundraising committee to skirt campaign finance regulations. As Politico reported this weekend, the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF), which was designed to be a joint fundraising effort between the Clinton campaign and the DNC to help Democrats win down-ticket races, is unloading unusually large amounts of cash to Hillary for America (HFA) — Hillary Clinton’s official campaign account.
Deutsch pointed out that the money disbursed by the Hillary Victory Fund is disproportionately benefiting the Clinton campaign, rather than the Democratic Party as a whole:
The Hillary Victory Fund has reported receiving several individual contributions in amounts as high as $353,400 or more, which is over 130 times the $2,700 limit that applies for contributions to Secretary Clinton’s campaign. Bernie 2016 is particularly concerned that these extremely large-dollar individual contributions have been used by the Hillary Victory Fund to pay for more than $7.8 million in direct mail efforts and over $8.6 million in online advertising, both of which appear to benefit only HFA by generating low-dollar contributions that flow only to HFA, rather than to the DNC or any of the participating state party committees.
The press release from the Sanders campaign also mentions the “unusual arrangement” in how Hillary Clinton’s campaign staffers are reimbursed for time spent helping the Hillary Victory Fund, allowing the joint committee to unload large sums of cash directly into the Clinton campaign’s coffers:
The joint committee has paid the Clinton campaign committee $2.6 million ostensibly to “reimburse” the Clinton presidential campaign staff for time spent running the joint committee. The unusual arrangement, Deutsch said, “raises equally serious concerns that joint committee funds, which are meant to be allocated proportionally among the participating committees, are being used to impermissibly subsidize HFA through an over-reimbursement for campaign staffers and resources.”
On the Hillary Victory Fund’s official FEC report, the joint fundraising committee disbursed $9.5 million in funds to HFA, while only allocating just over $2 million for the DNC and even less money for state Democratic parties.
The Sanders campaign called this a “serious apparent violation” of existing campaign finance laws, which limit the maximum amount an individual can contribute to $2,700 for each candidate in a campaign cycle. Because the Hillary Victory Fund is classified as a joint fundraising committee rather than a campaign, it can solicit contributions of up to a third of a million dollars from one individual, as Walmart heir Alice Walton contributed.
The $2,700 individual limit was seen as a trying obstacle for the Clinton campaign in early 2016, as the LA Times reported in February that the former Secretary of State was already panicking over its well of maximum donors drying out with nearly half a year to go before the nominating contest was over.
As of this writing, the DNC has yet to respond to the Sanders campaign’s inquiry.
Prestor Jon wrote: Congress doesn't have the right to enter the 2.000.000+ homes in the US that might have lead paint in them, test all the paint and pay to have it removed/replaced.
I disagree. Interstate commerce.
Not many houses built pre 1978 are crossing state lines to be sold.
The point it moot as the government isn't forcing people to do anything. People with lead-based paint in their houses apply for grants to deal with it (or at least that's my general understanding).
And of course funding it the problem. If congress spent half the time writing laws and getting funding to help this sort of thing they spend with riotous indignation, they wouldn't happen.
We already have disclosure requirements for real estate agents, home sellers and contractors/renovation companies to notify residents/owners/buyers that all homes/buildings built prior to 1978 may contain lead based paint and to disclose any information/knowledge of lead based paint in the residence/building. Congress doesn't have the right to enter the 2.000.000+ homes in the US that might have lead paint in them, test all the paint and pay to have it removed/replaced. If you buy or rent a house that was built before 1978 then you've been informed of the risk of lead paint, what you do about it is your personal choice. The federal govt can't forcibly repaint private residences for the sake of the children.
You appear to have misunderstood. People apply for grants, the government doesn't force it on them.
Yes I know. You were advocating for congress to do more but there isn't anything congress can do to get people to repaint their homes. Paint used to be lead based, old houses have old paint, replacing the old lead paint with new lead free paint removes the lead poisoning hazard but it's an optional change that has to originate with the home owner. It's not a problem that requires congress to act.
Prestor Jon wrote: Congress doesn't have the right to enter the 2.000.000+ homes in the US that might have lead paint in them, test all the paint and pay to have it removed/replaced.
If you buy or rent a house that was built before 1978 then you've been informed of the risk of lead paint, what you do about it is your personal choice. The federal govt can't forcibly repaint private residences for the sake of the children.
What if your neighbor refuses to care for the lead in the paint that saturates his walls?
My neighbor can paint the house my neighbor owns however my neighbor wants its not my problem or my house.
The house was already built and painted the commerce was already conducted. Interstate commerce doesn't apply since the painting was already done, nobody can currently paint the interior or exterior of homes with lead paint. Congress can't pass post facto laws. You can buy a house with lead paint or not buy a house with lead paint, you can choose to replace the paint or not. It's not a federal issue and does not require federal action.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: The point it moot as the government isn't forcing people to do anything. People with lead-based paint in their houses apply for grants to deal with it (or at least that's my general understanding).
You said you wanted congress to write new laws to deal with old houses that have lead based paint and to increase funding for lead paint remediation. What new federal laws do you think we need to get more homeowners to decide to repaint their old homes?
I was more thinking about funding, after-all, that was a pretty big point in the video, that the situation is solvable, it just requires adiquite funding, which it does not receive. Did you not watch the video?
I don't have time to watch the video, but i am under the impression that lead paint is safe when it is inert, ie, sitting dry on the wall. It's only a hazard if you mess with it, start to sand it or you have a house fire for example. Does the video debunk this? Just living in a house with lead paint is harmful?
My neighbor can paint the house my neighbor owns however my neighbor wants its not my problem or my house.
I disagree, even more so when it comes to the safety of the public and children. Congress even disagreed with your argument, since you cannot use lead paint to paint your house anymore. So really your neighbor cannot paint his house the way he wants to paint his house because it is our problem.
The issue now is that all these houses still have lead paint in them and it is still effecting people, even though we have tried to get rid of it. We still have lead pipes in the ground, even though we know we shouldn't.
This is a very fixable situation, what it comes down to is people arguing "freedom" and "cost". In reality, you do not have the "freedom" to harm another human being directly or indirectly. We also have the money to do this so "cost" is really not an issue.
feeder wrote: I don't have time to watch the video, but i am under the impression that lead paint is safe when it is inert, ie, sitting dry on the wall. It's only a hazard if you mess with it, start to sand it or you have a house fire for example. Does the video debunk this? Just living in a house with lead paint is harmful?
Your impression is wrong then. Lead paint is dangerous at all times because paint can chip and turn in to dust and be inhaled. Just because you are not actively messing with the paint on your walls does not mean it is not breaking down and entering the air around you.
feeder wrote: I don't have time to watch the video, but i am under the impression that lead paint is safe when it is inert, ie, sitting dry on the wall. It's only a hazard if you mess with it, start to sand it or you have a house fire for example. Does the video debunk this? Just living in a house with lead paint is harmful?
Your impression is wrong then. Lead paint is dangerous at all times because paint can chip and turn in to dust and be inhaled. Just because you are not actively messing with the paint on your walls does not mean it is not breaking down and entering the air around you.
Well that makes sense. Living in a house with lead paint for long term isn't a great idea then.
Ehh.... going back to the Gold Standard is fairly normal rhetoric for that side, and is just as dumb coming from Cruz as it is the others.
He said "ideally" back by gold standard.
He's driving the point to encourage more stable monetary policies. The funny thing is... The President doesn't "set" that policy's. Only the Feds and hypothetically something from Congress.
whembly wrote: He's driving the point to encourage more stable monetary policies.
When you are done with those rose colored glasses you should share them. I'm also not sure Cruz has an honest concept of what actual stable monetary policies are so I doubt he can make a point about them. Then again he is an American Hero so maybe that gives him magical insight.
whembly wrote: He's driving the point to encourage more stable monetary policies.
When you are done with those rose colored glasses you should share them. I'm also not sure Cruz has an honest concept of what actual stable monetary policies are so I doubt he can make a point about them. Then again he is an American Hero so maybe that gives him magical insight.
My glasses are fine thankyhouverymuch!!
Cruz is a much better politician than the blowhard Trump, corrupt Clinton and Marxist-wannabe Sanders.
This makes me think you don't actually know anything about Marx or Sanders. Hell, makes me think you know almost nothing about socialism when you conflate it with Marxism. On the other hand it does make you useful to Republican strategists trying to get a vote, so you have that going for you.
This makes me think you don't actually know anything about Marx or Sanders. Hell, makes me think you know almost nothing about socialism when you conflate it with Marxism. On the other hand it does make you useful to Republican strategists trying to get a vote, so you have that going for you.
Ya know what? Your response is enlightening, and I'll tell you why.
A) It wouldn't shock anyone that I wouldn't vote for Trump/Hillary/Sanders, so I opted to lay the obvious hyperbolic sarcasm in my response.
B) You cut out my "corrupt Clinton" thing... alluding that you'd agree with that assessment?
C1) You felt the need to defend Sander's honor here... even though it's obvious that I was being sarcastic... unless, you didn't think I was.
C2) I'll bite. It's the height of hubris to believe that if Sanders does become President, they he'd be able to pass his socialistic dream budget and regulatory changes. At best, you'd see the current state. Which is fething shame.
Ted Cruz has been proudly talking about his goldbug stupidity for years. Basically this is what happens when a political party decides the facts suck, and so they're going to believe whatever they want. You end up with guys like Cruz as possible presidential candidates.
whembly wrote: He's driving the point to encourage more stable monetary policies. The funny thing is... The President doesn't "set" that policy's. Only the Feds and hypothetically something from Congress.
The really 'funny' thing is that a gold backed currency doesn't fluctuate any less than a normal currency. The gold price fluctuates wildly, like any commodity. And not just in the short term, got changes value massively over the long term as well.
When Cruz or any other goldbug talks about this, what they're actually excited about is the idea of removing expected inflation, the idea that $1 today is expected to be worth a little bit less next year. The goldbugs get excited about the idea that under gold $1 might be worth a bit less next year, but it also might be worth a bit more. That kind of randomness seems okay, because the alternative, expected inflation, just seems horrible, they even call it theft. This is because they have come to think that if prices rise 2%, they must be 2% poorer - they don't realise that the 2% inflation has also inflated their paycheck. Confused by this, they think something that stops inflation will create wealth.
Ahtman wrote: This makes me think you don't actually know anything about Marx or Sanders. Hell, makes me think you know almost nothing about socialism when you conflate it with Marxism. On the other hand it does make you useful to Republican strategists trying to get a vote, so you have that going for you.
In terms of who's actually got policies that match up with the Soviet Union... well the Soviet ruble was backed by gold for most of the duration of the Soviet Union, it lasted longer there than in most capitalist countries. So vote for Ted Cruz if you want the US to have the same monetary policy as the USSR.
I really love it when people talk about how money backed by gold is somehow more "real" than money that isn't, as if the value of gold is anything other than an agreement to use it as a medium of exchange. Sure, it has some useful industrial and artistic properties, but it wouldn't be worth nearly as much as it is now if we didn't all agree to use it as money.
Peregrine wrote: I really love it when people talk about how money backed by gold is somehow more "real" than money that isn't, as if the value of gold is anything other than an agreement to use it as a medium of exchange. Sure, it has some useful industrial and artistic properties, but it wouldn't be worth nearly as much as it is now if we didn't all agree to use it as money.
I think the issue is that people get confused about the value of currency itself, they think a dollar needs to have a real, intrinsic value, that it either needs to be made of precious metal, or at least be able to be traded in for precious metal. They don't understand that it is just a medium of exchange, that even when currency was backed by or made of precious metal, it was an entirely notional relationship - what always mattered was the ability to trade that dollar for goods and services that people actually wanted.
Peregrine wrote: I really love it when people talk about how money backed by gold is somehow more "real" than money that isn't, as if the value of gold is anything other than an agreement to use it as a medium of exchange. Sure, it has some useful industrial and artistic properties, but it wouldn't be worth nearly as much as it is now if we didn't all agree to use it as money.
I think the issue is that people get confused about the value of currency itself, they think a dollar needs to have a real, intrinsic value, that it either needs to be made of precious metal, or at least be able to be traded in for precious metal. They don't understand that it is just a medium of exchange, that even when currency was backed by or made of precious metal, it was an entirely notional relationship - what always mattered was the ability to trade that dollar for goods and services that people actually wanted.
I think there is more to it than that. Pegging a currency to a commodity like gold also has some effect on the supply of the currency. We've seen the Federal Reserve increasing supply of dollars and making those dollars 'cheap' by keeping interest rates low. This has some folks upset.
Ustrello wrote: Hell if you go by pure marxism (and not that failed abortion that is leninism) the united states is a quasi socalist state.
The means of production are not owned by the workers, so no. Workers don't even have strong rights.
This.... and hell, if you look at our labor history, it ain't pretty.
In Germany, you have workers who said, "Ya know, I'm a human being, and I should be treated as such." so the factory owners said, "OK, cool, y'all form a union, and we'll get you sorted with decent pay, a medical and dental plan, and we'll all make more money in the long run."
In the US you have workers who say, "Ya know, I'm a human being, and I think we should be treated as such." the factory owners say, "Feth you!! you think you're something!? How's a nice PAY CUT!!!! you exist to make me money! OHHH... you want to form a union!? What are you COMMIES!? Feth off, you peasants!" (probably not an actual quote here)
Ustrello wrote: Hell if you go by pure marxism (and not that failed abortion that is leninism) the united states is a quasi socalist state.
The means of production are not owned by the workers, so no. Workers don't even have strong rights.
Wait you mean the United States doesn't have public education, welfare and state funded projects which are all part of marxs socialist state? Damn I must of slipped under the radar not paying for school
Well, judging by the general mood, I'd say Hillary and Trump.
This thing is sort of a new experience for NY, this is the first time I can remember where both primaries mattered. It's sort of interesting. The Trump rally on Sunday went well, both the supporters and protesters were calm and didn't get violent.
The rest of the family is getting ready for voting. I'm the only one not, as I'm registered independent.
On the other hand, we're finally getting a conversation about how badly the NY election system is run. Especially when talking about switching parties, apparently you'd have to have done it by last October to be able to vote in the primaries now, which is as stupid as it sounds.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Well, judging by the general mood, I'd say Hillary and Trump.
This thing is sort of a new experience for NY, this is the first time I can remember where both primaries mattered. It's sort of interesting. The Trump rally on Sunday went well, both the supporters and protesters were calm and didn't get violent.
The rest of the family is getting ready for voting. I'm the only one not, as I'm registered independent.
On the other hand, we're finally getting a conversation about how badly the NY election system is run. Especially when talking about switching parties, apparently you'd have to have done it by last October to be able to vote in the primaries now, which is as stupid as it sounds.
My prediction:
Hillary wins a "squeaker" over Sanders
Ustrello wrote: Hell if you go by pure marxism (and not that failed abortion that is leninism) the united states is a quasi socalist state.
The means of production are not owned by the workers, so no. Workers don't even have strong rights.
Wait you mean the United States doesn't have public education, welfare and state funded projects which are all part of marxs socialist state? Damn I must of slipped under the radar not paying for school
Those do not make for a socialist state because those things are "the state doing anything, at all" which even right-wingers want it to do. Socialism is more specific than that.
And, well, the US isn't really doing too hot on the whole public education, welfare and infrastructure front lately, anyway...
whembly wrote: Trump wins a bunch, but struggles to get to 50% majority in each of the CD. He needs at least, 80 delegates to have a shot at getting 1237 on first ballot.
Local radio show this morning estimated that if Trump gets less than 70 delegates, it's effectively a loss for him. I can't believe he has the balls to say that he'd hire the best if he were President when he can't even hire relatively competent people for his campaign. So many missteps led to Cruz "stealing" delegates right and left.
On the other hand, we're finally getting a conversation about how badly the NY election system is run. Especially when talking about switching parties, apparently you'd have to have done it by last October to be able to vote in the primaries now, which is as stupid as it sounds.
Remember, a vote for Tammany Hall is a vote for America
whembly wrote: Trump wins a bunch, but struggles to get to 50% majority in each of the CD. He needs at least, 80 delegates to have a shot at getting 1237 on first ballot.
Local radio show this morning estimated that if Trump gets less than 70 delegates, it's effectively a loss for him. I can't believe he has the balls to say that he'd hire the best if he were President when he can't even hire relatively competent people for his campaign.
Indeedeo.
So many missteps led to Cruz "stealing" delegates right and left.
I know you put in "quote" stealing to mock such arguments... but, this whole stealing meme is getting old already.
Every single presidential candidate except for Trump knows what this system is...
It's not corrupt.
It's the system by which party members pick their nominee. The Party themselves are protected under the 1st Amendment's freedom of assembly.
No American is forcedto participate.
Furthermore, these Parties are institutions. Thus, they are seen as having vested interests in perserving their brand. This is why Pepsi doesn't let Coca-Cola participate in their brand. In some states, Republicans don't let Democrat voters participate in their brand (and vice-versa). Meaning, if you put someone at the top of the ticket that is so unpopular that you lose the House... you're not doing the right thing for your party.
Right??
This is what happened to the Democrats in the '68 primary as the party elites didn't understand the strength of that party's anti-Vietnam war opposition. To a certain extent... Republican elites didn't understand the anger their constituents have towards them... which manifested itself to the rise of Trump.
Bottom line... Trump and his ilk has been flatly unprepared to do the hard work and they have only themselves to blame.
Ustrello wrote: Hell if you go by pure marxism (and not that failed abortion that is leninism) the united states is a quasi socalist state.
The means of production are not owned by the workers, so no. Workers don't even have strong rights.
Wait you mean the United States doesn't have public education, welfare and state funded projects which are all part of marxs socialist state? Damn I must of slipped under the radar not paying for school
Those do not make for a socialist state because those things are "the state doing anything, at all" which even right-wingers want it to do. Socialism is more specific than that.
And, well, the US isn't really doing too hot on the whole public education, welfare and infrastructure front lately, anyway...
Well if you want to move the goalposts that is fine. But I am going by the marx definition which why I said the US is a quasi socialist state because it does provide state services.
Ustrello wrote: Hell if you go by pure marxism (and not that failed abortion that is leninism) the united states is a quasi socalist state.
The means of production are not owned by the workers, so no. Workers don't even have strong rights.
Wait you mean the United States doesn't have public education, welfare and state funded projects which are all part of marxs socialist state? Damn I must of slipped under the radar not paying for school
Those do not make for a socialist state because those things are "the state doing anything, at all" which even right-wingers want it to do. Socialism is more specific than that.
And, well, the US isn't really doing too hot on the whole public education, welfare and infrastructure front lately, anyway...
Well if you want to move the goalposts that is fine. But I am going by the marx definition which why I said the US is a quasi socialist state because it does provide state services.
No. Just no. The defining feature of Marxism is the common ownership of the means of production by the proletariat, required because the act of earning profit off of someone else's work means the people being exploited lose some of their humanity. You don't get to make up definitions just because they suit you. By your definition Nazi Germany was quasi-Socialist. It's a trainwreck of an argument.
Whembly: I would also add that Trump doesn't seem to get that the primaries are all about cozying up to the party and getting them to pick you, not a general election. He is running his primary like he thought it was only popular election. And is paying heavily on the tail end.
Ustrello wrote: Hell if you go by pure marxism (and not that failed abortion that is leninism) the united states is a quasi socalist state.
The means of production are not owned by the workers, so no. Workers don't even have strong rights.
Wait you mean the United States doesn't have public education, welfare and state funded projects which are all part of marxs socialist state? Damn I must of slipped under the radar not paying for school
Those do not make for a socialist state because those things are "the state doing anything, at all" which even right-wingers want it to do. Socialism is more specific than that.
And, well, the US isn't really doing too hot on the whole public education, welfare and infrastructure front lately, anyway...
Well if you want to move the goalposts that is fine. But I am going by the marx definition which why I said the US is a quasi socialist state because it does provide state services.
No. Just no. The defining feature of Marxism is the common ownership of the means of production by the proletariat, required because the act of earning profit off of someone else's work means the people being exploited lose some of their humanity. You don't get to make up definitions just because they suit you. By your definition Nazi Germany was quasi-Socialist. It's a trainwreck of an argument.
You conveniently leave out marxs levels of state in which in the socialist the state does start to provide for the people while having a blended economy of private and public owned ventures. So no your argument is too narroe and doesn't look at the breadth of his statements.
All the more reason to stop this nonsense where "marxist" and "socialist" are thrown around as veiled code words for "unAmerican" that really just serve to mud sling opponents. The whole thing is ridiculous.
jmurph wrote: Whembly: I would also add that Trump doesn't seem to get that the primaries are all about cozying up to the party and getting them to pick you, not a general election. He is running his primary like he thought it was only popular election. And is paying heavily on the tail end.
That point is lost on many folks.
The absolute irony is that the Republican Primary actually encourages insurgent candidates.
LordofHats wrote: All the more reason to stop this nonsense where "marxist" and "socialist" are thrown around as veiled code words for "unAmerican" that really just serve to mud sling opponents. The whole thing is ridiculous.
LordofHats wrote: All the more reason to stop this nonsense where "marxist" and "socialist" are thrown around as veiled code words for "unAmerican" that really just serve to mud sling opponents. The whole thing is ridiculous.
I don't believe Sanders is "unAmerican".
I do believe he's sorely misguided on most of his policy ideas.
He's an avowed socialist who has tendencies to praise/support harsh regimes (ie, USSR, Cuba, and Venezuela).
Not someone who'd I want as President. But, luckily his crackpot "plans" for the country would see resistance in the House/Senate. Such that, the current gridlock would look much the same in a future Sander's Presidency. In fact, I'd go as far as he'd be a leftier version of an Obama 3rd term.
The Bernie Socialism Brand™ he's pushing is still the sucks ass kind of socialism, and I'm tired of the whole "we need to be more like Europe" arguments.
No offense to any Europeans... but, 'Murrica dances to her own tune.
LordofHats wrote: All the more reason to stop this nonsense where "marxist" and "socialist" are thrown around as veiled code words for "unAmerican" that really just serve to mud sling opponents. The whole thing is ridiculous.
Sounds exactly like what a socialist would say.
Pick up the can citizen!
Or... as Hillary Clinton said we ought to put Adults into fun day camps!
<Klaxon> Indoctrination begins on 0600 tommorrow citizen! <\Klaxon>
This election has proved beyond any others before it, how the two party system is the second greatest scam perpetuated against the American people.
The Republican party is seriously considering a brokered convention and giving the finger to their base. And the Dems are doing everything in their power to ensure Bernie can't beat Hillary.
The parties are in it for themselves and that's all they are in it for
SickSix wrote: This election has proved beyond any others before it, how the two party system is the second greatest scam perpetuated against the American people.
The Republican party is seriously considering a brokered convention and giving the finger to their base. And the Dems are doing everything in their power to ensure Bernie can't beat Hillary.
The parties are in it for themselves and that's all they are in it for
SickSix wrote: This election has proved beyond any others before it, how the two party system is the second greatest scam perpetuated against the American people.
The Republican party is seriously considering a brokered convention and giving the finger to their base. And the Dems are doing everything in their power to ensure Bernie can't beat Hillary.
The parties are in it for themselves and that's all they are in it for
I do believe he's sorely misguided on most of his policy ideas.
So... you also believe that Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, JFK, etc. were also misguided?
Sorry, I don't see the comparison.
Lol... Teddy's big thing: Breaking up "Trusts"... Bernie's "big thing" is breaking up the banks
FdR was all about "decent wages," healthcare for all. Bernie is all about "decent wages" and healthcare for all
I can't necessarily agree with other media articles that bring in Truman, Ike, and JFK, because I am not as familiar with their policies, but the comparison is there for them as well. Thing is, Bernie really isn't extreme at all. We've had presidents just as extreme as him (one even "necessitated" a new constitutional amendment), and they all had good results. I cant remember who it was ITT, but someone did also point out how non-extreme Sanders is, it's just that American politics is to such a circus level of ridiculousness, that he looks extreme in his sanity.
SickSix wrote: This election has proved beyond any others before it, how the two party system is the second greatest scam perpetuated against the American people.
The Republican party is seriously considering a brokered convention and giving the finger to their base. And the Dems are doing everything in their power to ensure Bernie can't beat Hillary.
The parties are in it for themselves and that's all they are in it for
... 18. He used to be a “Sandernista.” As mayor, Sanders attracted national attention and controversy for supporting the socialist Sandinista government in Nicaragua, which was fighting a proxy war with the United States under Ronald Reagan.
In 1985, he became the highest-ranking American official to visit Nicaragua at the time, and met with President Daniel Ortega. In his book, he called the trip “profoundly emotional” and praised Ortega. Burlington and Managua, Nicaragua’s capital, became sister cities.
19. Sanders honeymooned in the USSR. Sanders married his current wife, Jane, in May of 1988 and the next day left for their “romantic honeymoon” to Yaroslavl, in the then-Soviet Union. The trip was an official delegation from Burlington to cement the two cities’ sister-city relationship. “Trust me. It was a very strange honeymoon,” Sanders writes.
“Trust me. It was a very strange honeymoon.” He also visited Cuba with Jane in 1989 and tried to meet with Fidel Castro, but it didn’t work out and he met with the mayor of Havana and other officials instead. Sanders is proud of Burlington’s international diplomacy efforts. “Burlington had a foreign policy because, as progressives, we understood that we all live in one world,” he writes. ...
Maybe it's time to acknowledge that Sanders is unashamed of his leftist views that is an extreme viewpoint in the U.S?
The USSR, Cuba and Venezuela do deserve praise, though. Sanders is just a social democrat but that is indeed an extreme position in a country where it's politically correct to hate and bomb any place that doesn't unreservedly bow to capitalism.
Rosebuddy wrote: The USSR, Cuba and Venezuela do deserve praise, though.
There's genuine praise vs. praise born from an ideological viewpoint. I believe it's the latter when we're talking about Sanders as that is his brand.
Sanders is just a social democrat but that is indeed an extreme position in a country where it's politically correct to hate and bomb any place that doesn't unreservedly bow to capitalism.
It has nothing to do with him being "unashamed of his leftist views" and more that you just believe whatever bs you're fed.
I've already run down how amazingly stupid it is to claim that he "loved the USSR" because he went there once, all of which you just ignored (as per usual). Feel free to go dig them up and give them a reread.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: It has nothing to do with him being "unashamed of his leftist views" and more that you just believe whatever bs you're fed.
I've already run down how amazingly stupid it is to claim that he "loved the USSR" because he went there once, all of which you just ignored (as per usual). Feel free to go dig them up and give them a reread.
"praised/support" is what I said.
Or maybe a better description is an "infatuation", especially over something like the Danish system.
Rosebuddy wrote: The USSR, Cuba and Venezuela do deserve praise, though.
There's genuine praise vs. praise born from an ideological viewpoint. I believe it's the latter when we're talking about Sanders as that is his brand.
Sander's political commitment seems quite genuine. If he says that he thinks something a country or organisation did was good then he probably does really believe that and doesn't say it just because his ideology demands it.
Sanders is just a social democrat but that is indeed an extreme position in a country where it's politically correct to hate and bomb any place that doesn't unreservedly bow to capitalism.
wut?
I'm saying that the degree of leftism that Sanders represents is really quite ordinary and has its limits. You're not really seeing him planning to liquidate the wealthy as a class, for one thing. I don't think I've heard him orate about the necessity of upholding Mao, either.
Rosebuddy wrote: The USSR, Cuba and Venezuela do deserve praise, though.
There's genuine praise vs. praise born from an ideological viewpoint. I believe it's the latter when we're talking about Sanders as that is his brand.
Sander's political commitment seems quite genuine. If he says that he thinks something a country or organisation did was good then he probably does really believe that and doesn't say it just because his ideology demands it.
I'll grant you that he does believe it, as he's a remarkably consistent politician.
Sanders is just a social democrat but that is indeed an extreme position in a country where it's politically correct to hate and bomb any place that doesn't unreservedly bow to capitalism.
wut?
I'm saying that the degree of leftism that Sanders represents is really quite ordinary and has its limits. You're not really seeing him planning to liquidate the wealthy as a class, for one thing. I don't think I've heard him orate about the necessity of upholding Mao, either.
With respect to American Politics... he's way over to the left:
No offense to any Europeans... but, 'Murrica dances to her own tune.
The Can Can? Possibly The Sailor's Hornpipe? Any other song that properly illustrates how certain elements of the US populace use arrogance to mask insecurity?
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: It has nothing to do with him being "unashamed of his leftist views" and more that you just believe whatever bs you're fed.
I've already run down how amazingly stupid it is to claim that he "loved the USSR" because he went there once, all of which you just ignored (as per usual). Feel free to go dig them up and give them a reread.
"praised/support" is what I said.
Or maybe a better description is an "infatuation", especially over something like the Danish system.
Again, simply going somewhere doesn't mean you praise/support/are infatuated with said place. Also, the last time you brought this up I showed you in no uncertain terms how stupid it was and you just the usual Whembly thing and ignored it until you were distracted by a new shiny.
I went to Greece for my 30th birthday during their financial crisis, does that mean I support the fact that their government lied about their debt levels?
Voters on the inactive list can still cast a ballot if they live in the city.
But the “missing” voters are out of luck — their names have been stricken from the records.
That's right, administrative error in liberal New York City has deprived nearly 55,000 voters of their civil right. Where is the outrage? Where are the people rioting in the streets? Where is the youtube segment by John Oliver? Most importantly of all, why is the idea that feckless city officials not doing their job = an acceptable excuse for depriving voters of their right to vote?
Because of retirements and staff illness, the voting list was not properly maintained in Brooklyn for six to eight months.
Where has anyone proposed that it is acceptable? Cause it doesn't seem acceptable. I spoke to this exact point pages ago. If we're concerned about voting errors, we'd do better to focus on rolls and the potential for clerical mistakes, cause at 55k Brooklyn just blew voter fraud out of the water as a statistic. Maybe all this time spent on voter ID could have been better spent making sure the rolls were properly maintained
LordofHats wrote: Where has anyone proposed that it is acceptable? Cause it doesn't seem acceptable. I spoke to this exact point pages ago. If we're concerned about voting errors, we'd do better to focus on rolls and the potential for clerical mistakes, cause at 55k Brooklyn just blew voter fraud out of the water as a statistic. Maybe all this time spent on voter ID could have been better spent making sure the rolls were properly maintained
Voter ID isn't an issue up for debate in New York politics so they really don't have any excuse, do they?
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: It has nothing to do with him being "unashamed of his leftist views" and more that you just believe whatever bs you're fed.
I've already run down how amazingly stupid it is to claim that he "loved the USSR" because he went there once, all of which you just ignored (as per usual). Feel free to go dig them up and give them a reread.
"praised/support" is what I said.
Or maybe a better description is an "infatuation", especially over something like the Danish system.
Again, simply going somewhere doesn't mean you praise/support/are infatuated with said place. Also, the last time you brought this up I showed you in no uncertain terms how stupid it was and you just the usual Whembly thing and ignored it until you were distracted by a new shiny.
I went to Greece for my 30th birthday during their financial crisis, does that mean I support the fact that their government lied about their debt levels?
Did you setup a sister city in the USSR as the mayor of Burlington, Vt.? Did you also travel to Nicaragua to praise the rise of Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government, while calling it a “heroic revolution.” Are you calling for a revolution in America?
If not, then no... that's asinine to assume you support the Greek government by simply visiting that country.
So please, stop trying to whitewash Sander's past.
He seems like a nice guy... but a misguided nice guy.
Having a sister city in the USSR has what terrible effect then? Many cities, all over the world, are twinned with other cities. Some of those would be cities in the USSR, or other eastern bloc countries.
And were the Sandinistas worse than the government that they deposed? Certainly not when it came to educating the people of Nicaragua or providing healthcare. Were the Sandinistas worse, in any way, than the Contras which the US government was supporting at the time that Sanders visited the country?
Was the Cuban revolutionary government worse than Batista? Again, not when it came to providing education and healthcare.
It is possible to praise the actions of somebody without having to approve of everything they do. To Godwin it, Hitler built great roads, no denying it. Me saying that doesn't mean I support Hitler.
Also, from actually watching the video, he doesn't "heap praise onto Castro" as some people are putting it. He says, quite rightly, that expecting a mass uprising against the man who had brought free education and healthcare to the majority of the Cuban people because the US sent over some armed dissidents was absolutely idiotic and that the Reagan administration made the same mistake with the Contras in Nicaragua.
He did praise the apparent sincerity of the Sandinista leaders. And he has a point. Most people will not endure years of hardship and fighting for a political belief they do not truly believe in. And apparently the Nicaraguans agree, considering that in their most recent elections they voted for the Sandinistas.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Having a sister city in the USSR has what terrible effect then? Many cities, all over the world, are twinned with other cities. Some of those would be cities in the USSR, or other eastern bloc countries.
And were the Sandinistas worse than the government that they deposed? Certainly not when it came to educating the people of Nicaragua or providing healthcare. Were the Sandinistas worse, in any way, than the Contras which the US government was supporting at the time that Sanders visited the country?
Was the Cuban revolutionary government worse than Batista? Again, not when it came to providing education and healthcare.
It is possible to praise the actions of somebody without having to approve of everything they do. To Godwin it, Hitler built great roads, no denying it. Me saying that doesn't mean I support Hitler.
So the end justifies the means then... eh?
As long as the roads are built and the train runs on time... we can't ever criticize the political environment?
¡Viva la Revolución!
*shrugs*
I'd argue that ideologically, we don't want to be a socialist like those in Latin America or even the scandinavian countries.
Let's make sure we aren't just quoting someone then wildly mis-attributing their points to better serve your own purposes. An honest mistake is ok, that is borderline "ftfy"-ing their post. Thanks.
Breotan wrote: Where is the youtube segment by John Oliver?
I remember when people used to get upset that Jon Stewart would comment on current affairs, and then "hide behind being a comedian". At this point, it's now gone so far in the other direction that we now expect comedians to have live news coverage of breaking events even on a show called Last Week Tonight.
As long as the roads are built and the train runs on time... we can't ever criticize the political environment?
¡Viva la Revolución!
Congratulations, you completely failed to address any actual points. Of course you can criticise the political environment but only by actually making valid points.
For example you can criticise the Cuban government for its human rights record, which is severely lacking. But just spouting garbage about how Castro is evil and socialism is terrible and must be stopped isn't criticism. Has the cuban government done bad things? Yes, they have. Have they done good things? Yes, they have. It is up to the Cuban people to decide whether the bad outweighs the good and what to do about it if they think that it does.
As for the ends justifying the means, are you referring to the act of violent revolution in order to overthrow a tyrannical government? Because there would be some definite irony in an American claiming that that isn't a legitimate form of enacting political change.
motyak wrote: Let's make sure we aren't just quoting someone then wildly mis-attributing their points to better serve your own purposes. An honest mistake is ok, that is borderline "ftfy"-ing their post. Thanks.
As long as the roads are built and the train runs on time... we can't ever criticize the political environment?
¡Viva la Revolución!
Congratulations, you completely failed to address any actual points.
Actually, it should be apparent where I'm coming from...
Of course you can criticise the political environment but only by actually making valid points.
For example you can criticise the Cuban government for its human rights record, which is severely lacking. But just spouting garbage about how Castro is evil and socialism is terrible and must be stopped isn't criticism.
Castro's brand of socialisms *is* fething evil. The Cuban people are *not* free.
As for the ends justifying the means, are you referring to the act of violent revolution in order to overthrow a tyrannical ruler? Because there would be some definite irony in an American claiming that that isn't a legitimate form of enacting political change.
So, trading one evil for another...
It's like what Snake Plisskin said:
The more things change, the more things stay the same.
CptJake wrote: I think there is more to it than that. Pegging a currency to a commodity like gold also has some effect on the supply of the currency. We've seen the Federal Reserve increasing supply of dollars and making those dollars 'cheap' by keeping interest rates low. This has some folks upset.
Yeah, and that has two parts. There's people who lose out in a low interest environment - investors and the like. These folk have powerful voices but the only relatively numerous group are self-funded retirees, and even they're not that large a group.
So the way they get electoral relevance is by playing to the people who get confused about fiat money.
whembly wrote: Bottom line... Trump and his ilk has been flatly unprepared to do the hard work and they have only themselves to blame.
Well, sort of. No argument at all that Trump has failed to get organised as well as he should, and it's cost him delegates and it will almost certainly cost him the second round ballot (which was a stretch anyway).
But that doesn't mean the system is okay. It shouldn't ever be okay that people turn up to vote for a candidate but end up with a delegate who may hate that delegate, but is required to represent him through one round of voting. That's a crazy system. There are better ways to produce a more democratic system, and better ways to allow the party to 'massage' the result towards their preferred candidate.
We ain't no purty angels... but, we sure as feth ain't evil.
You wouldn't call the illegal internment of US citizens during WW2 evil? What about conducting an "experiment" on one segment of the population, and denying actual treatment to victims during said experiment (Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment)?
What about using US citizens to kill other US citizens (Railroad owners v. union organizers, mining interests v. mining unions, etc.)? What about the mass extermination of entire populations (nearly the entire Native American population)?
Hell, on that last one, a rather prominent US general was once quoted as saying, "One dead buffalo is one dead indian."
whembly wrote: Bottom line... Trump and his ilk has been flatly unprepared to do the hard work and they have only themselves to blame.
Well, sort of. No argument at all that Trump has failed to get organised as well as he should, and it's cost him delegates and it will almost certainly cost him the second round ballot (which was a stretch anyway).
But that doesn't mean the system is okay. It shouldn't ever be okay that people turn up to vote for a candidate but end up with a delegate who may hate that delegate, but is required to represent him through one round of voting. That's a crazy system. There are better ways to produce a more democratic system, and better ways to allow the party to 'massage' the result towards their preferred candidate.
Sure... but that's the way it's been since day one.
Don't lose sight to the fact that it's a National Party, plus 50 state party rules.
'Tis why we have caucuses/primary/open primary/closed primary/proportional delegates/winners-takes-all/WTA by district/etc...
IF Trump can't get to a majority, then all bets are off. That's a feature, not a bug in a Constitutional Republic.
What I'd like to see on Primary voting day, is to have a hierarchy voting, where you list out your preference in order. For instance:
-Candidate Z is your first choice
-Candidate X is your second
-and so forth.
That way, when a candidate drops out, the heirachy get recalibrated. But the only that something like that can happen, is if EACH of the 50 state's party agrees to do that.
We ain't no purty angels... but, we sure as feth ain't evil.
You wouldn't call the illegal internment of US citizens during WW2 evil? What about conducting an "experiment" on one segment of the population, and denying actual treatment to victims during said experiment (Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment)?
What about using US citizens to kill other US citizens (Railroad owners v. union organizers, mining interests v. mining unions, etc.)? What about the mass extermination of entire populations (nearly the entire Native American population)?
Hell, on that last one, a rather prominent US general was once quoted as saying, "One dead buffalo is one dead indian."
Yeah, that's the fething model of virtue.
Need me to go on?
No, you don't need to go on as I refused to let those shame in our history "define" who we are. They are horrible, and we've acknowledged it. But, that doesn't make us "evil".
Otherwise, you lost focus to what that word means.
Castro's dictatorial regime is still an evil dictatorial regime. No need to say "yeah but...".
What I'd like to see on Primary voting day, is to have a hierarchy voting, where you list out your preference in order. For instance:
-Candidate Z is your first choice
-Candidate X is your second
-and so forth.
That way, when a candidate drops out, the heirachy get recalibrated. But the only that something like that can happen, is if EACH of the 50 state's party agrees to do that.
That's not a bad idea... I do have to wonder though, if this is fixing a problem that doesn't really exist.
By that I mean that up to this point, it has not been typical for one party to start a presidential primary season with 15 candidates. Even if there are only three candidates for a given party, I don't really see a ranking system vote "fixing" any issues with primary voting.
What I'd like to see on Primary voting day, is to have a hierarchy voting, where you list out your preference in order. For instance:
-Candidate Z is your first choice
-Candidate X is your second
-and so forth.
That way, when a candidate drops out, the heirachy get recalibrated. But the only that something like that can happen, is if EACH of the 50 state's party agrees to do that.
That's not a bad idea... I do have to wonder though, if this is fixing a problem that doesn't really exist.
By that I mean that up to this point, it has not been typical for one party to start a presidential primary season with 15 candidates. Even if there are only three candidates for a given party, I don't really see a ranking system vote "fixing" any issues with primary voting.
True...but, I wonder if that opens the floodgate in future elections.
I don't think this has a chance to happen, and all the crazy different elections will remain the same.
Sanders down by about 15%, with 73% reporting. That's improving slightly, I'm guessing because upstate NY is coming in slower, and Sanders is stronger there. It was over 20% in favour of Clinton earlier in the count. Even if it comes down a bit more, the strong win for Clinton means Sanders chance goes from silly to really silly. Clinton will extend her delegate lead by about 20, and Sanders will have even fewer remaining delegates to catch up.
Sanders will stay in, but I wonder if he'll finally switch from hoping for a miracle win, and instead go back to building a socialist base within the party. Hopefully.
Meanwhile Trump has done enough to remain almost close enough to hit 1,237. The 2016 Republican primary staying true to form - whatever will produce the most unclear result and keep this thing dragging on even longer will happen.
Probably my favourite bit in the New York race is how screwy the system can get when you have congressional district voting, and some districts which are overwhelmingly in favour of one party. New York’s 15th is massively Democratic – but by Republican rules it has 3 delegate to award like every other district in New York. But because there’s so few Republicans in the district those 3 delegates will end up getting allocated by about 300 to 350 Republican votes.
whembly wrote: Sure... but that's the way it's been since day one.
Sure, and that’s a very good argument for why Trump shouldn’t whinge, but it isn’t a good argument for it being a good system.
IF Trump can't get to a majority, then all bets are off. That's a feature, not a bug in a Constitutional Republic.
That your nation is a constitutional republic is utterly irrelevant to how a private political party determines its presidential candidate.
What I'd like to see on Primary voting day, is to have a hierarchy voting, where you list out your preference in order. For instance:
-Candidate Z is your first choice
-Candidate X is your second
-and so forth.
That way, when a candidate drops out, the heirachy get recalibrated. But the only that something like that can happen, is if EACH of the 50 state's party agrees to do that.
That’s the system Australia uses in our elections! And it is a really good system, and would work much better for the primaries in the US. There’d be no issue of being in an early state, and risking your vote going to a candidate who drops out long before the end. There’d be no issue of what should happen if no candidate fails to reach 50% of the votes by the convention – everyone’s second choice would be allocated – open, clean, and completely democratic.
And it is worth noting Trump would be almost certain to lose under that system. With state delegates allocated proportionately Trump would have a much lower count than he has now, and he’d pick up very few second round votes. Hey, I’d be happy to go out on a limb and say if you had that system Rubio would probably still be in the race, and likely to pick up the nomination as other candidates dropped out and preferences flowed to him.
That’s the system Australia uses in our elections! And it is a really good system, and would work much better for the primaries in the US. There’d be no issue of being in an early state, and risking your vote going to a candidate who drops out long before the end. There’d be no issue of what should happen if no candidate fails to reach 50% of the votes by the convention – everyone’s second choice would be allocated – open, clean, and completely democratic.
And it is worth noting Trump would be almost certain to lose under that system. With state delegates allocated proportionately Trump would have a much lower count than he has now, and he’d pick up very few second round votes. Hey, I’d be happy to go out on a limb and say if you had that system Rubio would probably still be in the race, and likely to pick up the nomination as other candidates dropped out and preferences flowed to him.
No, you don't need to go on as I refused to let those shame in our history "define" who we are. They are horrible, and we've acknowledged it. But, that doesn't make us "evil".
Otherwise, you lost focus to what that word means.
Castro's dictatorial regime is still an evil dictatorial regime. No need to say "yeah but...".
We performed forced sterilization on Native Americans well into the latter half of the 20th century.
We still let entire sections of our population starve to death and die from easily preventable diseases.
We assassinate our own citizens and conduct human rights violations right now.
You might refuse to let this "define" who we are, but you are perfectly happy letting the gak-stains of history and current affairs define whatever other country or form of government you are told to dislike.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: That's not a bad idea... I do have to wonder though, if this is fixing a problem that doesn't really exist.
By that I mean that up to this point, it has not been typical for one party to start a presidential primary season with 15 candidates. Even if there are only three candidates for a given party, I don't really see a ranking system vote "fixing" any issues with primary voting.
Sure, the bloated debates were pretty crazy, but the field is generally quite crowded at the start of the primaries. In 2012 there were 7 Republicans in contention, in 2008 it was 8, not that many less than this year’s 11.
What’s different is that in past elections the result has been clear enough for the party to form around one candidate in an informal way long before the convention. But then a system that is defended on the grounds that generally the result is so obvious that the system details don’t matter isn’t a very good system.
His "patterns," huh? That only matters for people like you that don't understand nuance and only see the world in black-and-white.
Did you setup a sister city in the USSR as the mayor of Burlington, Vt.?
That notion is so laughably stupid and something I've already explained to you so I'm going to skip to the next thing.
Did you also travel to Nicaragua to praise the rise of Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government, while calling it a “heroic revolution.” Are you calling for a revolution in America?
While your icon Ronald Reagan was illegally selling arms to the other side while they committed mass human rights violations? Were the Contras not also "evil?"
If not, then no... that's asinine to assume you support the Greek government by simply visiting that country.
That doesn't seem to stop you from doing it.
So please, stop trying to whitewash Sander's past.
I'm not, I'm just refuting your bs.
He seems like a nice guy... but a misguided nice guy.
Ustrello wrote: Hell if you go by pure marxism (and not that failed abortion that is leninism) the united states is a quasi socalist state.
The means of production are not owned by the workers, so no. Workers don't even have strong rights.
Wait you mean the United States doesn't have public education, welfare and state funded projects which are all part of marxs socialist state? Damn I must of slipped under the radar not paying for school
Those do not make for a socialist state because those things are "the state doing anything, at all" which even right-wingers want it to do. Socialism is more specific than that.
And, well, the US isn't really doing too hot on the whole public education, welfare and infrastructure front lately, anyway...
Well if you want to move the goalposts that is fine. But I am going by the marx definition which why I said the US is a quasi socialist state because it does provide state services.
No. Just no. The defining feature of Marxism is the common ownership of the means of production by the proletariat, required because the act of earning profit off of someone else's work means the people being exploited lose some of their humanity. You don't get to make up definitions just because they suit you. By your definition Nazi Germany was quasi-Socialist. It's a trainwreck of an argument.
You conveniently leave out marxs levels of state in which in the socialist the state does start to provide for the people while having a blended economy of private and public owned ventures. So no your argument is too narroe and doesn't look at the breadth of his statements.
Bismarck also argued for the creation of a social security net. You're pretending that the only ideology to argue in favour of social security programs is Marxism, when it isn't even the defining feature of the system. Try again.
We're the fifth largest economy in the world, and arguably the second or most important in international finance, taking into account the worldwide insurance market.
The UK economy is currently strongly tied to the overall EU economy, in ways that will have to change after Brexit.
It's impossible that Brexit won't cause upsets in the UK, European and world economy. Just the announcement of the referendum caused some wobbles.
At least now they're literate, numerate and have healthcare whilst not being "free". They've moved up under communism.
Meanwhile in the US people are burdened by huge debts thanks to your education and healthcare systems. Is that not affecting their freedom?
No... it is not.
Wanna know why?
We can vote our political figures out of office.
We can protest...
We can write/speak against out political figures to our heart's content.
Try doing that in Havanna.
In a couple of months you'll get to vote for either Clinton or whichever Republican technocrat is given the nomination. Let's see how much that changes the student debt industry, the collapse of public education, the lack of universal healthcare, wars or for that matter the ongoing voter disenfranchisement. Sanders represents one of the biggest differences in actual policy and the Democratic Party is doing everything it can to give Clinton the nomination instead.
Ok, so you'll protest. How much did that help against the invasion of Iraq? How much did that help against the bank bailouts? Mass protests have happened very recently and people were jailed and abused for it. Speaking out is harmless when armies of cops stand by to make sure that it never leads to real action.
whembly wrote: Bottom line... Trump and his ilk has been flatly unprepared to do the hard work and they have only themselves to blame.
Well, sort of. No argument at all that Trump has failed to get organised as well as he should, and it's cost him delegates and it will almost certainly cost him the second round ballot (which was a stretch anyway).
But that doesn't mean the system is okay. It shouldn't ever be okay that people turn up to vote for a candidate but end up with a delegate who may hate that delegate, but is required to represent him through one round of voting. That's a crazy system. There are better ways to produce a more democratic system, and better ways to allow the party to 'massage' the result towards their preferred candidate.
Sure... but that's the way it's been since day one.
Don't lose sight to the fact that it's a National Party, plus 50 state party rules.
'Tis why we have caucuses/primary/open primary/closed primary/proportional delegates/winners-takes-all/WTA by district/etc...
IF Trump can't get to a majority, then all bets are off. That's a feature, not a bug in a Constitutional Republic.
What I'd like to see on Primary voting day, is to have a hierarchy voting, where you list out your preference in order. For instance: -Candidate Z is your first choice -Candidate X is your second -and so forth.
That way, when a candidate drops out, the heirachy get recalibrated. But the only that something like that can happen, is if EACH of the 50 state's party agrees to do that.
Why not just go all the way and do instant runoff. That gets rid of the spoiler affects of smaller candidates as well.
Wow, did Trump have a total wipe, only one district lost and claimed by Kasich by all people.
Pretty much what I thought on the democratic side, The more urban areas for Clinton, while the others for Bernie, although I'm surprised he got Albany.
Edit: And pretty much confirmed what I thought of my county (Ulster), pro Bernie and Trump, as it's the extremes who get out to vote in primaries around here. We tend to be pretty moderate up here, pretty much exemplifed by out current representative, a moderate R.
d-usa wrote: We would rather crash and burn the American Way(tm) than dare do something that works for the rest of the world.
Which is funny, considering the Constitution is grounded in European thought.
That sounds like socialist talk!
Every American knows that the founding fathers invented the Constitution and America to get away from the evil British monarchy, which Americans hated (all Americans- there is no way like 1/3-2/3 opposed this or where indifferent and considered themselves British). Also, America has been right on everything since then, won 2 World Wars, and saved Europe, which they wasted by turning socialist and going bankrupt. It is the job creators that create prosperity!
Seriously though, it amazes me how strong an anti-worker element we have in the US despite US workers being some of the most productive in the world and yet seeing no real wage growth for decades. And that same element pushes for increasing deregulation and lower taxes for the same corporate "job creators" that have largely dismantled the US skilled labor base, exported, and outsourced a huge chunk of the job base. All of this resulting in tidy growth for the wealthiest while the middle class collapses, higher level educational costs spiral out of control, etc.
It's also why talk of candidates like HRC being "to the left" is nonsense. The "right" has just stridently pulled further to the extremes and ignored the "leftist" Democrats taking up the slack in the middle and figured out how to make a broader pitch. The Republicans have becomes so beholden to the wealthy elite that they overlooked their populist base. HRC is firmly entrenched in the existing power structure and there is no indication that she will do anything to upset the current trends. Just like the current president, who saw huge gains for the wealthy and not so much for anyone else, she will give lip service to popular issues, but keep things on track for the top. And the middle class will continue to evaporate. Which fuels reactionaries like Trump and dogmatic manipulators like Cruz. Neither of whom offer any better solutions.
Sanders will stay in, but I wonder if he'll finally switch from hoping for a miracle win, and instead go back to building a socialist base within the party. Hopefully.
I hope this is what he does.... but I don't think he will.
I know I I'm gushing a little, but I would just like to post this little thing that my representative (Chris Gibson, R-NY) did on the radio yesterday. Right at 2:25 (the whole thing is only 8:44) talking about he Supreme Court stuff.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I know I I'm gushing a little, but I would just like to post this little thing that my representative (Chris Gibson, R-NY) did on the radio yesterday. Right at 2:25 (the whole thing is only 8:44) talking about he Supreme Court stuff.
The interesting thing here is that it wasn't split on ideological lines...
Justice Roberts was snarky in dissent:
Roberts, who cares about the institution of the court perhaps more than any other justice wrote, “I readily concede, without embarrassment, that it can sometimes be difficult to draw the line between legislative and judicial power.”
He said, however, “the entire constitutional enterprise depends on their being such a line.”
Ustrello wrote: He is pretty much laying the foundation for a Elizabeth Warren run in the next 4 or 8 years to be honest.
Then he needs to be stumping less and building infrastructure more. He should take a page from good ol' Al Franken and what he did before his Senate run in MN.
SO Trump dominated in New York, rebuffing Cruz with Kasich (surprisingly) coming in second. Next up is PA, RI, MD, CT, and DE. That is 172 delegates. I don't see Cruz faring much better in these, but Kasich could continue to grab a few votes. Does the narrative that it is now mathematically impossible for Cruz or Kasich to win the nomination outside of a contested convention push these contests towards Trump? Does Trump end the month breaking 1000 delegates?
Albany is famously more conservative than much of the rest of New York. Really, the further away from New York City you get, the less Democratic the state becomes.
LordofHats wrote: Albany is famously more conservative than much of the rest of New York. Really, the further away from New York City you get, the less Democratic the state becomes.
That seems to be how many states are. In IA, Des Moines and Iowa City are pretty Dem heavy voting....but the rest of the mainly rural state usually goes pretty heavy Republican.
I think we can all agree that as a general rule, large cities tend to run Democratic, rural areas tend to run Republican, and Suburbs are the meeting place where the sacrifices are handed assault rifles and told to kill the other side
Ustrello wrote: He is pretty much laying the foundation for a Elizabeth Warren run in the next 4 or 8 years to be honest.
It needs more than a plan to set someone else up 4 or 8 years from now. Look at movement conservatism as the classic example of how to take over a political party from the inside. From the initial conceptual foundations to Reagan’s win was about 30 years of work. But by the time of Reagan’s win they weren’t just the most powerful faction within the Republican party, they’d set themselves up to be increasingly dominant in every election cycle for decades to come.
I’m not saying that Sanders’ democratic socialism needs to set its sights on 2046 Most of the conceptual work has been done, and has an inherent appeal that Sanders has capitalised on. What’s needed now is to build lasting grass roots organisations that can be counted on to deliver votes in every election, not just in presidential elections but in every election, especially every primary election.
I’m not saying that Sanders’ democratic socialism needs to set its sights on 2046 Most of the conceptual work has been done, and has an inherent appeal that Sanders has capitalised on. What’s needed now is to build lasting grass roots organisations that can be counted on to deliver votes in every election, not just in presidential elections but in every election, especially every primary election.
IMO, the number of people that are 18-26 or so (the major Bernie demo) are a decent start for that grass roots movement you describe. As they age and get into more facets of politics, they will inevitably shift the politics.
Nevelon wrote: NY county maps are a fun read. Clinton took most of the urban areas, while the rest of the state went Bernie. Fun with population density!
The other electoral patterns held strong as well - with minority votes breaking heavily for Clinton over Sanders. Clinton tied the white vote, but won 75% of the black vote and 63% of the hispanic vote. This helps explain why Clinton did better in NY, and Sanders did better upstate.
And it's also why all the excitement about Sanders recent string of wins was way more hype than reality. Those were states with demographics that overwhelmingly favoured Sanders already, he wasn't 'gaining momentum' by winning them, his wins there was just enough to keep him in the race, in many cases he needed to be winning those states by a lot more than he was, because the campaign was soon going to switch back to territory that's a lot more favourable to Clinton. Which it did, with New York, and the result was as expected, really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: IMO, the number of people that are 18-26 or so (the major Bernie demo) are a decent start for that grass roots movement you describe. As they age and get into more facets of politics, they will inevitably shift the politics.
Yep. The foundations are there, in demographics, and also in having a message that has a clear and simple appeal to voters. But those things don't just turn in to wins, there needs to be real effort to turn it in to infrastructure that will deliver votes and wins in primary and general elections in the years to come.
Sorry to keep banging this drum, but Obama arrives in the UK today to issue warnings and dire predictions should we in the UK vote to leave the European Union
In the spirit of things, here's 4 questions I would like American dakka members to answer:
1) How would you like open borders between the USA, Canada, and Mexico, with people having the right to live and work anywhere in the USA/Canada/Mexico for as long as they wanted?
2) What would the American reaction be if the highest legal authority in North America was a court in Canada or a court in Mexico, with legal powers over American citizens?
3) Would you be happy if our Prime Minister visited the USA in November and told people not to vote for Clinton or Trump, as it would damage world markets?
4) If political union between nations is so good, then why did you guys break away from Britain in 1776?
You realise you're asking this about a federation of states, right?
I mean the scales that we're talking about are staggeringly different.
The distance between the houses of parliament and the EU in Brussels is about 199 miles.
The distance between San Francisco and the US Capitol Building is 2440 miles.
Your first question would be more akin to "How would you like open borders between California, Nevade and Oregon?"
Your second question ignores the fact that whilst the geographical position is in Canada or Mexico, the US would supply their own delegates to attend and vote on issues on their behalf.
Can't comment as I'm not from the US. I wouldn't like it, but that's because I feel uncomfortable being in the same country as Cameron.
Because Taxation without representation. Representation that we have in the EU.
Goliath wrote: You realise you're asking this about a federation of states, right?
I mean the scales that we're talking about are staggeringly different.
The distance between the houses of parliament and the EU in Brussels is about 199 miles.
The distance between San Francisco and the US Capitol Building is 2440 miles.
Your first question would be more akin to "How would you like open borders between California, Nevade and Oregon?"
Your second question ignores the fact that whilst the geographical position is in Canada or Mexico, the US would supply their own delegates to attend and vote on issues on their behalf.
Can't comment as I'm not from the US. I wouldn't like it, but that's because I feel uncomfortable being in the same country as Cameron.
Because Taxation without representation. Representation that we have in the EU.
Also, this is off-topic.
It's not off topic. This is a American politics threads, and a number of high ranking American politicians past and present, including the current president, and a former president (Bill Clinton) have expressed a view on Britain's place in the EU.
I'm curious to know what American think about this.
As far as the PM advising us who to vote for, sure, why not? It is important to realize that America does not exist in a vacuum, we share this planet with quite a lot of other people, and it is important to be informed on how our actions might affect the rest of the world.
Because I think it's becoming more apparent that the rest of the world can probably survive quite well without the US, but the US can't survive without the rest of the world.
whembly wrote: I wonder if Kasich can win Indiana... Or do you think it's between Trump and Cruz?
At this point, I don't see Kasich winning any state. But he does seem to be spoilering Trump to a limited degree in the areas states where Trump is strongest and Cruz tends to flounder. So that is probably why he is staying in- he may be able to keep Trump from hitting the magic number if he can siphon off just enough delegates in the next few states like PA and Indiana.
On the Dem side, I would expect that Sanders tones it down now and starts to reconcile with Clinton and start the consolidation. The Dems look like they will have their candidate much earlier than the Repubs, which will be a significant advantage. Not to mention nationally Clinton seems to be polling much better than both of the GOP frontrunners (Kasich is the only one beating her in the national polls), for whatever that is worth.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Sorry to keep banging this drum, but Obama arrives in the UK today to issue warnings and dire predictions should we in the UK vote to leave the European Union
In the spirit of things, here's 4 questions I would like American dakka members to answer:
1) How would you like open borders between the USA, Canada, and Mexico, with people having the right to live and work anywhere in the USA/Canada/Mexico for as long as they wanted?
Personally, I wouldn't mind this, provided we establish a system of taxing any and all income made in the US (ie, a person can live in Mexico, but work in San Diego, paying San Diego taxes on the income they earn, etc)
2) What would the American reaction be if the highest legal authority in North America was a court in Canada or a court in Mexico, with legal powers over American citizens?
I would only be Ok with this IF that court applied only to matters that cross borders. (Kind of similar to how our state courts answer to a circuit court, which answers to our SCOTUS)
3) Would you be happy if our Prime Minister visited the USA in November and told people not to vote for Clinton or Trump, as it would damage world markets?
If he said that about Clinton, I'd probably laugh him off, because he's full of it... If he said that about Trump I'd probably do my best Baptist Church impression: "Thank you Jesus! Amen! Preach it brotha!"
4) If political union between nations is so good, then why did you guys break away from Britain in 1776?
Well, it was kind of a dick move..... but Canada has so much maple syrup, and you know how our capitalism rolls: we just want in on that action.
Call me biased, or whatever, but I would be ok with an open border with Canada but not so much with Mexico.
My biggest reason: the crime and cartels in Mexico are horrible. Allowing an open border with them would, I feel, increase some crimes in the US.
I feel too that it would also hurt the US economy having a far more open border policy *if* corporations are also more free to move. I am sure that there will always be some businesses that are looking for the right opportunity to cut labor costs...and if given an opening to do so, would move to a lower cost country.
Canada has a far more stable economy, government, and legal system. It is widely known Mexico has a tremendous problem with corruption within all three.
As far as the SCOTUS and other judicial bodies goes: I believe that every country in the UN (whixh the US is) can be subject to the World Court authority.
Granted, the country *does* have the ability/right to withhold their consent to be jusged...but I don't believe that UN members tend to go against the World Court rulings because of potential negatives that UN membership can apply.
I get why the World Court exists, but I don't necessarily see them as superior to the SCOTUS....nor should they ever be when it comes to internal matters of any sovereign nation (UN member or not).
World leaders can (and do) offer their opinions on what other countries should (or should not) do all the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As far as independence goes: the US was not the only colony to ever fight against British rule.
whembly wrote: I wonder if Kasich can win Indiana... Or do you think it's between Trump and Cruz?
At this point, I don't see Kasich winning any state. But he does seem to be spoilering Trump to a limited degree in the areas states where Trump is strongest and Cruz tends to flounder. So that is probably why he is staying in- he may be able to keep Trump from hitting the magic number if he can siphon off just enough delegates in the next few states like PA and Indiana.
On the Dem side, I would expect that Sanders tones it down now and starts to reconcile with Clinton and start the consolidation. The Dems look like they will have their candidate much earlier than the Repubs, which will be a significant advantage. Not to mention nationally Clinton seems to be polling much better than both of the GOP frontrunners (Kasich is the only one beating her in the national polls), for whatever that is worth.
I also hope he tones it down and let's her pivot towards the general while not completely jettisoning the Left-wing talking points she adopted in the Primary.
Sebs is completely right about building the movement. He needs to stop stumping just for himself now, and start finding the candidates that are aligned or sympathetic to his view, and go stump with them in their states, provide donations from his backers, and start recommending these campaigns to his voters to support as well. He essentially needs to start sharing the spotlight with down ticket candidates that are his allies.
Still waiting to see my first one. I laughed aloud when she opened the folder and a bright glow shines out of it like she's just opened the Ark of the Covenant. I was waiting for her face to melt like a Nazi who had been confronted with the righteous blinding light of Cruz.
That was actually an OK video, until the patented Cruz narcissism kicked in. Also, I guess this is my first time seeing that TrusTed logo. That was a very bad idea, I think. The parodies just write themselves: DistrusTed, UntrusTed, DisuniTed, and so on.
Tannhauser42 wrote: That was actually an OK video, until the patented Cruz narcissism kicked in. Also, I guess this is my first time seeing that TrusTed logo. That was a very bad idea, I think. The parodies just write themselves: DistrusTed, UntrusTed, DisuniTed, and so on.
I agree with you on Cruz's logo... it doesn't work for me either. But, from what I gather, he used that during his Senate campaign, so I guess it worked in the past.
*shrugs*
So... just saw this and Kasich staying in the race makes a bit more sense now...
HOLLYWOOD, Fla. — If Republican National Committee rules governing the party's nominating process remain unchanged, it's all but impossible for Ohio Gov. John Kasich to gain enough delegates to put his name into nomination at the convention this July.
But he can become the GOP nominee anyway.
The rule governing the Republican Party's nomination process currently requires that a candidate demonstrate the written support of a majority of delegates from eight or more states. That threshold has helped winnow the field, with candidates dropping out as it became clear they'd be unable to meet it.
Currently, both Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have met the eight-state threshold, while Kasich, if polls of the remaining primary states hold, is highly unlikely to get there.
But top RNC strategists confirmed to reporters Thursday at the committee's Spring Meeting that the 40b requirement amounts to little more than a technciality. Having your name put into nomination affords candidates a number of advantages, like space in the convention hall and a nominating speech. But it's not required to ultimately win the nomination.
Under the current rules, even those candidates who don't meet the 8-state threshold can continue to amass delegate votes. And if they're able to cobble together the support of a majority of delegates — the magic 1237 number — they win, even if it's spread across all 50 states.
Typical interpretations of Rule 40 assumed Kasich's campaign would somehow have to rewrite the convention rules to get the governor into contention for the nomination. That's a tall order for the campaign, as they'd have to pack the committee finalizing the convention rules with supporters, and both Cruz and Trump already have an advantage in that effort. Still, Rule 40b isn't final — the Convention Rules Committee will meet the week before the convention to finalize changes to the rules.
But the fact that Rule 40b doesn't bar a candidate from gaining delegates' votes removes a huge obstacle from his path to the nomination.
And that's the assumption the Kasich campaign is operating under. Kasich strategist Mike Biundo told reporters at the RNC meeting that even if the rule isn't changed, they see a path for the candidate.
"Rule 40b doesnt exist until it exists, and even if…nothing changes in the rules, anybody who gets 1,237 gets the nomination," he said. "You dont have to have your name put in nomination. All that means is you don't get the speech and the pomp and circumstance.
"But if delegates keep coming our way on subsequent ballots and we get to 1,237, we're gonna be the nominee."
This is a seriously stupid commercial. So the HRC campaign thinks Trump's positions are scary? Wouldn't that be a good thing for GOPers? Also, why the heck would HRC crew be critical of stuff that aligns with their position??? But they are scared of Ted Cruz because "he is an outsider" and "honest". Okay....
Yeah, the TrusTed thing is already something of a joke, even on some of the more conservative sites. BusTed was a big one when the sex scandal stuff hit.
Cruz seems to really be struggling for coherent platforms that distinguish him from Trump and his ego seems to be crippling him just as much (the comments about fornicating with a rat, etc.). I think the nonstop attacks aren't playing very well and were it not for superior technical campaign management, Cruz would not be holding on (he couldn't even with the southern states to push Trump out). At this point it is just a question of which trainwreck limps over the finish line to be declared the chosen dumpster fire.
dogma wrote: Whembly, do you actually like Cruz's positions?
Mostly... yes. There are few things I just roll my eyes at, but I acknowledge that no candidate is perfect. He's more aligned to my views than Clinton that's for sure.
But, imo, he doesn't have the charismatic allure to motivate the voters. He'll only get the hard nosed GOP voters and will lack the means to convince the swing voters
Neither does Clinton... but, I believe most Clinton voters would hold their nose and vote for her regardless who the GOP puts up.
In a weird way, TRUMP does have that "north eastern tough guy" charisma, and it may work in the General Election. Even so, I would hate (absolutely hate) a Trump Presidency.
'Tis why I believe the GOP voters missed a huge opportunity in Rubio... as he's easily contrasts to Clinton and her policies, such that I'd believe he can attract those swing voters.
If Cruz's the nominee? I don't think he'd survive the DNC / Clinton onslaught.
If Trump's the nominee? I wouldn't have a fething clue as he's constantly overcomes the conventional wisdom.
Mostly... yes. There are few things I just roll my eyes at, but I acknowledge that no candidate is perfect. He's more aligned to my views than Clinton that's for sure.
That's apples and oranges. Which Cruz positions do you like?
Mostly... yes. There are few things I just roll my eyes at, but I acknowledge that no candidate is perfect. He's more aligned to my views than Clinton that's for sure.
That's apples and oranges. Which Cruz positions do you like?
Planned Parenthood sells body parts of unborn human beings. (Sep 2015) [whem: that's apparent, but the real question is if they're profiting from that] Allow vote to end Planned Parenthood's funding. (Aug 2015) [whem: and ensure that the $$$ is redirected from PP to other non-abortion providers] Prosecute Planned Parenthood for criminal violations. (Aug 2015)[whem: if found, yep] Ban taxpayer funding of abortion & partial birth abortion. (Mar 2015) [whem: agreed] Companies can deny insuring birth control. (Apr 2012)[whem: agreed] Protect innocent human life with partial-birth ban. (Jul 2011)[whem: agreed] Opposes public abortion funding. (Oct 2012) [whem: agreed] Opposes churches providing birth control. (Oct 2012)[whem: I opposed forcing churches to do that against their will... I'm assuming that Ted's stance]
Ted Cruz on Budget & Economy
Spoiler:
Original sponsor of Audit-The-Fed bill. (Jan 2016)[whem: No. Injecting more politics into the Fed's operation is a recipe for disaster] Would I bail out the banks again? Absolutely not!. (Nov 2015)[whem: agreed] I would not bail out Bank of America. (Nov 2015)[whem: you tell them Ted!] 1.2% annual growth over last 8 years is a disaster. (Nov 2015)[whem: it is pretty bad...] Audit the Fed; then end quantitative easing. (Oct 2015)[whem: no. stay the feth away. Nominate "your guy" when a chairman seat opens up, but let 'em do their job.] Use debt limit as leverage for policy change. (Oct 2015)[whem: agreed] Top 1% under Obama got fat & happy while workers are hurting. (Feb 2015)[whem: well that's aparent] Lost Generation: Obama agenda hammers young people. (Mar 2014)[whem: politicking] Balanced budget amendment to stop bankrupting our country. (Mar 2014)[whem:agreed... no chance in hell to pass... ] Choice is more federal spending, or free markets & liberty. (Aug 2012)[whem: duh] FactCheck: Yes, gross federal debt now exceeds GDP. (Aug 2012)[whem:duh ] Demand a Balanced Budget amendment. (Jul 2010)[whem: demand all you want... it ain't passing Ted. Focus on other things please ] Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate. (Jul 2010)[whem: eh, sounds good in principle... but, Congress sets spending priorities... work with them Ted. ] Supports a constitutional BBA. (Oct 2012)[whem: politicking] Supports the Cut-Cap-and-Balance Pledge. (Jan 2012)[whem: politicking] Endorsed by the Club for Growth, for pro-growth stances. (Aug 2012)[whem: k] Audit the Federal Reserve & its actions on mortgage loans. (Feb 2013)[whem: no]
Ted Cruz on Civil Rights
Spoiler:
Don't empower more lawsuits by demanding equal pay. (Oct 2015)[whem: eh? Not sure what this is about really.] Supreme Court gay rights ruling undermines the Constitution. (Jul 2015)[whem: agreed. Kennedy should've used the equal protection clause] Adopt economic affirmative action instead of race-based. (Jun 2015)[whem: agreed] Pray against a court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. (Apr 2015)[whem: politicking] Liberals obsessed with mandatory gay marriage in 50 states. (Apr 2015)[whem: seems so... but, SC ruled already] Zealotry on same-sex marriage leaves out religious liberty. (Apr 2015)[whem: yup] Most states can ignore Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage. (Mar 2015)[whem: politicking... and... disagree with Ted] Overturn Supreme Court with anti-gay marriage Amendment. (Oct 2014)[whem: good luck] Opposes gay pride parades and opposes gay marriage. (Feb 2012)[whem: politicking] One-man-one-woman marriage is building block of society. (Jul 2011)[whem: politicking] Disallow Ku Klux Klan from participating in Adopt-A-Highway. (Jul 2011)[whem: why? Let 'em. That we can pollute their stretch of reads. ] Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)[whem: not up to speed on this... need to read up on it.] Supports defining traditional marriage. (Oct 2012)[whem: politicking] Sponsored state definition of marriage supersedes federal gay marriage. (Feb 2014)[whem: politicking]
Ted Cruz on Corporations
Spoiler:
End sugar subsidies and corporate welfare. (Nov 2015)[whem: OH YES!] Business flat tax of 16%; big business same as small. (Oct 2015)[whem: not really a big fan of his tax plan... but, it'll do.] Slash corporate tax rates to 15 percent. (Mar 2015)[whem: to spur economic growth?] Get senseless obstacles from Washington out of the way. (Jan 2015)[whem: agreed]
Ted Cruz on Crime
Spoiler:
Convert regulatory crimes into civil offenses. (Apr 2015)[whem: ABSO-FETHING-LUTELY!] World Court should have no say in Texas executions. (Jul 2011)[whem: agreed] Fully monitor sexual predators & bring them to justice. (Jul 2011)[whem: within reasons... sure. ] Supports the death penalty. (Oct 2012)[whem: I don't support the Death Penalty] Rated 55% by the NAPO, indicating a moderate stance on police issues. (Dec 2014)[whem: cool.]
Ted Cruz on Drugs
Spoiler:
Let's see what happens in Colorado with legalization. (Nov 2015)[whem: AGREED! 10th Amendment Honk!] Lower minimums and mandatory sentencing for drugs. (Apr 2015)[whem: agreed.] 2014: federal enforcement; 2015: let states experiment. (Mar 2015)[whem: AGREED!] I disagree with states legalizing pot, but it's their right. (Feb 2015)[whem: I don't disagree with, but totally agree it should be decided at the State.] Let states be laboratories of democracy on marijuana. (Feb 2015)[whem: yup.] I foolishly smoked pot when young, but never since. (Feb 2015)[whem: me to... but, as an old fogey, might try some "da chronic" products in Colorado.]
Ted Cruz on Education
Spoiler:
Race-to-the-Top is blackmail against the states. (Mar 2016)[whem: Riders will do that...] Abolish the U.S. Department of Education. (Apr 2015)[whem: ...and Block-grant the money to the states. Cool.] The rich already have school choice; give it to the poor. (Apr 2015)[whem: yup] Supports ending racial preferences for college admissions. (Apr 2015)[whem: agreed.] Right to education: public, private, charter, or homeschool. (Mar 2015)[whem: agreed.] We should thank parents who homeschool. (Mar 2015)[whem: yup] Local control of education instead of Common Core. (Mar 2015)[whem: yup] Facilitate school choice for poor Americans. (Jan 2014)[whem: yup] Education decisions best made at local level. (Jun 2012)[whem: yup] Denounce the Common Core State Standards. (Feb 2014)[whem: politicking] Block funding for Common Core; it's too heavy-handed. (Apr 2014)[whem: yup]
Ted Cruz on Energy & Oil
Spoiler:
Fight against Gulf moratorium on offshore exploration. (Jul 2011)[whem: yup] Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Aug 2012)[whem: yup] Cap-and-trade has no impact on global temperatures. (Jul 2010)[whem: eh... we don't know, but rather not spend $$$ on something we don't know like this.] Explore proven energy reserves & keep energy prices low. (Jul 2010)[whem: whole kitchen sink baby.] Let states lease energy rights on federal lands. (Jun 2013)[whem: Yup]
Ted Cruz on Environment
Spoiler:
Federal government shouldn't own $14 trillion worth of land. (Jun 2015)[whem: agreed, but only of the states want it (ie, the western state may not afford all of it.] Don't pick winners & losers like RFS' ethanol in gasoline. (Mar 2015)[whem: agreed.] Voted NO on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems. (May 2013)[whem: need to research that.]
Ted Cruz on Families & Children
Spoiler:
Hispanic values: faith, family & patriotism. (Feb 2016)[whem: cool... but don't really care.] Defend Judeo-Christian values against liberal fascism. (Apr 2015)[whem: politicking, but doesn't bother me] Opposes the unrelenting assault on traditional marriage. (Mar 2015)[whem: not a big issue for me.]
Ted Cruz on Foreign Policy
Spoiler:
Countries aspire to be like America, the exceptional nation. (Mar 2016)[whem: 'Murrica] Break diplomatic relations with Cuba. (Mar 2016)[whem: Unless we get something in return, sure.] Neutrality on Israel is moral relativism. (Feb 2016)[whem: yup] Under Hillary's leadership, every region of world is worse. (Nov 2015)[whem: AGREED!] Fighting ISIS is more important than fighting Assad. (Oct 2015)[whem: In terms of limited resources... agreed.] If Mideast strongmen still in power, better for US interests. (Oct 2015)[whem: appears that way... Ted seems to be playing MMQ] US should not engage in nation building in Afghanistan. (Oct 2015)[whem: agreed, or anywhere for that matter. If we go to war, we break stuff. ] Don't let world courts bind American sovereignty. (Sep 2015)[whem: yup] Move American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. (Sep 2015)[whem: yup] Law of the Sea Treaty undermines US sovereignty. (Jun 2015)[whem: yup] Guide policy with true leadership of moral clarity. (Jun 2015)[whem: politicking] Cuba is oppressive but never misses chance to propagandize. (Oct 2014)[whem: politicking] Vigorous sanctions against Putin; help eastern Ukraine. (Jul 2014)[whem: if that's in our best interest...] America is indispensable; our allies need our leadership. (Jun 2014)[whem: agreed] Sanctions on Putin for Ukraine: tyrants respond to weakness. (Mar 2014)[whem: agreed] US has a responsibility to defend our values abroad. (Mar 2014)[whem: agreed] Move US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem; recognize as cap. [whem: agreed](Jan 2015)
Ted Cruz on Free Trade
Spoiler:
I always opposed TPP, but I supported TPA. (Mar 2016) [whem: huh? need more research.] Import taxes are paid by consumers, not by China. (Mar 2016)[whem: duh] End the Export-Import Bank. (Aug 2015)[whem: duh... good like tho... hella graft for lobbiest/politicians/corporations....] The Export-Import bank is corporate welfare. (Mar 2015)[whem: duh] Defended Chinese company on intellectual property theft. (May 2012)[whem: cool] Dewhurst lying about defending Chinese intellectual property. (May 2012)
Ted Cruz on Government Reform
Spoiler:
Current administration defies Constitution and rule of law. (Mar 2016)[whem: agreed.] Authored 70 Supreme Court briefs & argued 9 cases. (Mar 2016)[whem: woah.] Need principled constitutionalist on high court. (Feb 2016)[whem: AGREED] 80-year history of no Supreme Court changes in election year. (Feb 2016)[whem: politicking] Executive orders abuse presidential power; undo them all. (Feb 2016)[whem: cool.] Obama-era regulations hurt small business. (Nov 2015)[whem: politicking, but true.] Eliminate IRS, HUD, and Departments of Commerce & Energy. (Nov 2015)[whem: good luck] If you like special interests, I ain't your guy. (Aug 2015)[whem: apparently.] Limits on individual campaign donations make things worse. (Jun 2015)[whem: agreed] Campaign finance laws function as incumbent protection. (Jun 2015)[whem: YUP!] Executive actions override Congress & the Constitution. (Nov 2014)[whem: Some... but many could be argued under the Chevron doctrine.] Stop IRS from asking: 'tell me the content of your prayers'. (Mar 2014)[whem: agreed] Presidents should not pick & choose laws to enforce. (Mar 2014)[whem: agreed, but within reasons. IE, weed laws] End Washington cronyism via Congressional term limits. (Mar 2014)[whem: I'm actually against this. (see CA's legislatures)] Obama dishonors Constitution by bypassing Congress. (Jan 2014)[whem: politicking] Obama's executive orders is open door for future lawlessness. (Jan 2014)[whem: yup] Debt ceiling limits "blank check" of federal spending. (Jan 2014)[whem: yup.] Dems want to get as many Americans as possible dependent. (Oct 2012)[whem: Lyndon Johnson articulated those sentiments long ago...] Head of the Center for Tenth Amendment Studies. (Jul 2011)[whem: cool] Require voters to show ID to avoid voter fraud. (Jul 2011)[whem: agreed] Identify constitutionality in every new congressional bill. (Jul 2010)[whem: AGREED] Audit federal agencies, to reform or eliminate them. (Jul 2010)[whem: agreed] Moratorium on all earmarks until budget is balanced. (Jul 2010)[whem: politicking] Prohibit IRS audits targeting Tea Party political groups. (Feb 2014)[whem: yup]
Ted Cruz on Gun Control
Spoiler:
Lack of individual right to guns leads to confiscation. (Jan 2016)[whem: YUP] Obama is coming for our guns. (Oct 2015)[whem: politicking, if Obama *could*, he *would* confiscate guns] 2nd Amendment is ultimate check against government tyranny. (Jun 2015)[whem: agreed] Opposes unreasonable and burdensome gun restrictions. (Jul 2011)[whem: yay!] Voted NO on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets. (Apr 2013)[whem: w00t!] Opposes restricting the Second Amendment. (Oct 2012)[whem: duh] Oppose the United Nations' Arms Trade Treaty. (Sep 2013)[whem: agreed]
Ted Cruz on Health Care
Spoiler:
Don't exempt Congress from ObamaCare, or any law. (Nov 2015)[whem: YES,YES,YES,YES!!!] I regret voting for John Roberts because of ObamaCare vote. (Sep 2015)[whem: politicking] Left calls it "single-payer," but that's socialized medicine. (Jun 2015)[whem: politicking] Washington wants ObamaCare, the people want liberty. (Feb 2015)[whem: politicking] Support nuns' battle for religious liberty against ObamaCare. (Jan 2015)[whem: agreed] Government shutdown on ObamaCare worked: GOP won in 2014. (Nov 2014)[whem: politicking... he's not wrong though.] Suspend commercial air travel to Ebola-infected areas. (Oct 2014)[whem: politicking] To repeal ObamaCare, show Dems they'd lose by supporting it. (Mar 2014)[whem: politicking] Obama changed ObamaCare mandate deadline by a blog post. (Jan 2014)[whem: politicking] Obama asked companies to disobey ObamaCare rules for a year. (Jan 2014)[whem: politicking] 5 million had health insurance canceled because of ObamaCare. (Jan 2014)[whem: yup] Vow to repeal ObamaCare. (Oct 2012)[whem: cool] Save Medicare by raising eligibility age. (Aug 2012)[whem: would that really save it?] Throw my body in front of a train to stop ObamaCare. (Apr 2012)[whem: politicking] Defeat ObamaCare; rein in the federal government. (Jul 2011)[whem: agreed] Defund, repeal, & replace federal care with free market. (Jul 2010)[whem: agreed] Repeal any federal health care takeover. (Aug 2012)[whem: agreed] Supports repealing ObamaCare. (Oct 2012)[whem: agreed] Supports market-based health insurance. (Oct 2012)[whem: agreed]
Ted Cruz on Homeland Security
Spoiler:
Provide our veterans the care they have been promised. (Mar 2016)[whem: absolutely] Snowden guilty of treason, but exposed massive surveillance. (Mar 2016)[whem: agreed] Increase armed forces to 1.4 million troops. (Feb 2016)[whem: do we need to? Not opposed, just want strong justifications] Waterboarding isn't torture; but not for low-level officers. (Feb 2016)[whem: our law says it's not, but rather not "put it on the table" in the first place.] Torture is wrong, unambiguously; America does not need it. (Jan 2016)[whem: yup] Americans who join ISIS forfeit their citizenship. (Jan 2016)[whem: actually disagrees with Ted here... baaaaaad slippery slows to revoke citizenships] On day one, rip to shreds the Iranian nuclear deal. (Sep 2015)[whem: w00t! suck that mullahs!] Label the enemy that Obama won't: radical Islamic terrorists. (Aug 2015)[whem: yup] Benghazi: administration knew right away it was terrorism. (Jun 2015)[whem: <breathes heavily> INDEED!] No more domestic BRAC until overseas BRAC closures. (Jun 2015)[whem: not sure what the issue is here...] Torture was rightly outlawed, but keep tactics classified. (Dec 2014)[whem: I actually waffle on this...] Americans who join ISIS should be barred from coming home. (Sep 2014)[whem: no. Extra scrutiny... yeah.] Vital role for deploying military force abroad. (Mar 2014)[whem: yup] Opposes TSA and National Defense Authorization Act. (Sep 2012)[whem: yup] Fierce advocate of recruiting and growing the military. (Jul 2011)[whem: agreed] Supports banning military gay marriage. (Oct 2012)[whem: disagrees] Sponsored opposing the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. (Mar 2013)[whem: agreed] No transfers of Gitmo prisoners to US or abroad. (Jan 2015)[whem: yup]
Ted Cruz on Immigration
Spoiler:
Bar refugees from terrorist-ridden regions. (Mar 2016)[whem: yup. Setup refugee camps elsewhere with protection] Children deported with parents can come back, if citizens. (Feb 2016)[whem: yup] I led the fight to defeat the Reid-Schumer amnesty bill. (Feb 2016)[whem: politicking] FactCheck: Yes, Bill Clinton deported 12M illegal aliens. (Dec 2015)[whem: politicking] Build a wall instead of massive amnesty plan. (Dec 2015)[whem: k] Enforce the law against millions of illegals currently here. (Dec 2015)[whem: agreed] Illegals are an economic calamity for low-wage Americans. (Nov 2015)[whem: duh] Support Kate's Law: oppose our leaders who won't enforce. (Aug 2015)[whem: absolutely] Path to citizenship is profoundly unfair to legal immigrants. (Feb 2015)[whem: agreed] End Obama's illegal amnesty via Congress' checks & balances. (Nov 2014)[whem: DOING IT 'DA PROPPA WAY!] Defund amnesty; and refuse any nominees until rescinded. (Nov 2014)[whem: politicking] No path to citizenship for 1.65 million illegals in Texas. (Oct 2012)[whem: agreed] Give police more power to ask about immigration status. (Jun 2012)[whem: duh] Boots on the ground, plus a wall. (Apr 2012)[whem: duh] Triple the size of the Border Patrol. (Mar 2012)[whem: k] Strengthen border security and increase enforcement. (Jul 2011)[whem: yup]
Ted Cruz on Jobs
Spoiler:
Job outlook great for lobbyists; not so great for others. (Jan 2016)[whem: politicking] Pass a flat tax and abolish the IRS, and jobs will follow. (Sep 2015)[whem: not big on his plan, but it'll do.] Raising minimum wage by executive fiat opposes rule of law. (Jan 2014)[whem: yup] Lowest labor force participation in over three decades. (Jan 2014)[whem: duh] Extending unemployment benefits exacerbates joblessness. (Aug 2012)[whem: yup]
Ted Cruz on Principles & Values
Spoiler:
I hear, "I didn't vote for you but you did what you said". (Feb 2016)[whem: politicking] FactCheck: Yes, Cruz speaks Spanish & understands Univision. (Feb 2016)[whem: politicking] FactCheck: McCain was born in US territory, not Panama. (Jan 2016)[whem: true] $1M campaign finance scandal: "I made a paperwork error". (Jan 2016)[whem: duh] NY values means not a lot of conservatives from Manhattan. (Jan 2016)[whem: everyone knew what he meant.] We the people can turn this nation around. (Nov 2015)[whem: 'Murrica] I'm not guy to have beer with; I'm the guy to drive you home. (Oct 2015)[whem: Ha! that's a good one Teddy...] How about talking about the issues, unlike mainstream media. (Oct 2015)[whem: politicking] I've been taking on government and my party. (Oct 2015)[whem: He's not wrong] I'm a consistent conservative, not a campaign conservative. (Aug 2015)[whem: politicking] Domestic policy adviser to George W. Bush campaign. (Jun 2015)[whem: politicking] I'm despised by GOP establishment, but so was Reagan. (Feb 2015)[whem: politicking] We win elections by bold principles & a positive agenda. (Mar 2014)[whem: politicking] Washington would be better with more farmers & fewer lawyers. (Mar 2014)[whem: politicking] OpEd: definition of "natural born" has wiggle room. (Dec 2013) Great Awakening: response to mess from career politicians. (Aug 2012) OpEd: His law firm donated $200,000 to Obama's campaign. (Apr 2012) Defend Ten Commandments and "under God" in the Pledge. (Jul 2011) Endorsed Member of the Tea Party movement. (Aug 2012)
Ted Cruz on Social Security
Spoiler:
Personal accounts for young; no changes for elderly. (Nov 2015)[whem: eh...] Eliminate payroll tax entirely. and IRS entirely. (Nov 2015)[whem: yup] No changes for seniors; personal accounts for young. (Oct 2015)[whem: eh] Implement commonsense reforms for younger workers. (Jun 2015)[whem: politicking] Raise retirement age; cap increases to inflation rate. (Aug 2012)[whem: k] Transition younger workers into personal savings system. (Jun 2012)[whem: yay!] Rated 0% by ARA, indicating a pro-privatization stance. (Jan 2013)[whem: politicking]
Ted Cruz on Tax Reform
Spoiler:
Tax returns on a postcard. (Feb 2016)[whem: worthy goal... can you herd cats?] There are more words in the tax code than in the Bible. (Nov 2015)[whem: politicking] Eliminate payroll tax, death tax, business tax, and IRS. (Oct 2015)[whem: okay] Abolish the IRS. (Feb 2015)[whem: good luck] Permanent Washington elite protects the tax code. (Apr 2012)[whem: politicking] Adopt a single-rate tax system. (Jul 2010)[whem: would love to... but barriers would be high to achieve this.] Repeal tax hikes in capital gains and death tax. (Jul 2010)[whem: yup] Supports the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. (Aug 2012)[whem: politicking] Opposes increasing tax rates. (Oct 2012)[whem: agreed] Supports eliminating the inheritance tax. (Oct 2012)[whem: agreed] Replace income tax and IRS with FairTax. (Mar 2015)[whem: meh... his version has somthing akin to a VAT to business side... which is a "hidden tax"... so, I'm 'meh' about it.]
Ted Cruz on Technology
Spoiler:
Require Apple to unlock iPhones used by terrorists. (Feb 2016)[whem: No. Disagree with Ted] Target cell phones and tech that Bad Guys likely to use. (Dec 2015)[whem: with warrants? sure!] Of course China & Russia have conducted cyberwarfare on US. (Aug 2015)[whem: duh] Net neutrality is ObamaCare for the Internet. (Nov 2014)[whem: politicking, but he's not wrong] Voted NO on authorizing states to collect Internet sales taxes. (May 2013)[whem: agreed]
Ted Cruz on War & Peace
Spoiler:
U.S.-Israel alliance is a strategic bedrock. (Mar 2016)[whem: agreed] Russia too strong for Syria cease-fire to hold. (Feb 2016)[whem: agreed] Overwhelming air power against ISIS, & arm the Kurds. (Feb 2016)[whem: agreed] Our enemies will feel our full force & fury. (Jan 2016)[whem: agreed] FactCheck: No, ISIS and Iran haven't declared war on America. (Dec 2015)[whem: duh] Assad is bad, but toppling him gives Syria to ISIS. (Dec 2015)[whem: duh] When terrorists join ISIS, they sign U.S. death warrant. (Dec 2015)[whem: No... unless they're in the field of battle. No extrajudicial dronings] If you wage jihad on America, you sign your death warrant. (Aug 2015)[whem: agreed] Toughen sanctions on Iran, to safeguard America. (Mar 2015)[whem: politicking] Provide defensive weapons for Ukraine against Russia. (Feb 2015)[whem: agreed] Arm the Kurds to fight ISIS, with US air support. (Feb 2015)[whem: agreed] Focused, direct military objective of destroying ISIS. (Feb 2015)[whem: agreed] Bomb ISIS back to the Stone Age. (Oct 2014)[whem: agreed... 'Murrica] Arm & aid the Peshmerga Kurds against ISIS. (Oct 2014)[whem: agreed] Don't arm Syrian rebels without a clear plan to combat ISIS. (Sep 2014)[whem: duh] Bomb ISIS back into the Stone Age, with Congress' approval. (Sep 2014)[whem: agreed] Install Eastern European ABMs; stand up to Russia in Ukraine. (Jun 2014)[whem: agreed] Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan went on too long. (Jun 2012)[whem: agreed] Sponsored shutting down Iranian foreign reserves. (May 2013)[whem: agreed]
Ted Cruz on Welfare & Poverty
Spoiler:
Regulations like ObamaCare lead to layoffs of the poorest. (Feb 2016)[whem: already happened...] FactCheck: Yes, 3.7M women became impoverished since 2008. (Oct 2015)[whem: politicking] If you really want to help needy, use private charities. (Jun 2015)[whem: sure] Government checks create dependency. (Aug 2012)[whem: politicking, but he's not wrong]
I made it as far as "Liberal fascism" in "defending the family" What. The. Feth.
As my own response to his/and your positions:
Ehh, abortion is a hot button issue. We all get that. Every single state that has investigated PP for illegal activities has wasted it's time. Let's leave sleeping dogs lie, eh?
On economics, methinks you, and Teddy don't quite have a grasp on how things really are.... 2% growth per year is considered amazing. 1.2% is, ehh, pretty damn good. I do agree with you on not bailing out banks again.
Also, I think he fails to realize that the top 1% who got "fat and happy" under Obama, were even MORE fat and happy under Bush jr. (and in general, whenever there's a "trickle down" president in office... fething snake oil)
"zealotry on SSM leaves out religious liberty" Say wut?? BAHAHAHA, that's pretty fething stupid right there. No body is forcing religious people to get SSM. All the SC has done is ensured that those who DO wish to get a SSM, can do so, and receive the same goods and services as more traditional couples do (namely the goods of cakes and that sort of thing, I don't think church ministers should be forced to marry against religious codes within the confines of their church, however if the couple wants to be wed in say, a city park, then it's fair game services)
His corporate ideals are kind of all over the place. I agree with y'all on the "sugar tax relief subsidies"... but then, that Jewish "socialist" guy does as well That's about where the coherency ends, his idea of a flat tax, and then "slashing" taxes for corporate entities is pretty all over the place, but slashing them is definitely a Trickle-down theory, and I am thoroughly against that.
When it comes to his stance on drugs, I disagree that each state should legalize weed or whatever on their own... Personally, I think that Colorado, Washington and Oregon have shown that it's OK, the world wont fall apart. That said, I think that because those states legalized it, if it is legalized at the federal levels, there should be ZERO federal tax dollars involved (as in, no "cigarette tax" on them) because that would basically end up punishing those states who jumped on that bandwagon early.
Hillary’s primary success is a sham: Bernie Sanders will remain the true Democratic front-runner until the FBI finishes its Investigation
It's not over until the FBI clears Hillary Clinton— which it absolutely shouldn't
Bernie Sanders is the only Democratic candidate for president not linked to an FBI investigation. This used to mean something in American politics, but those days are gone. Today, I’m viewed as delusional, by the same people who think smart politics and qualifications entail endless scandals, poor decision-making on everything from major foreign policy decisions to Wall Street speeches, and ongoing FBI investigations. In truth, the only delusion is believing that a candidate at risk of DOJ indictments, and facing political repercussions even without these indictments, would make a great president.
Nonetheless, this election season has been a bizarre case study in group think and competing narratives. At first, Bernie couldn’t win and Hillary was inevitable. Now, Bernie almost won, but apparently lost because of New York, and the FBI is simply a minor speed bump on the road to the White House. Tomorrow, Clinton will claim victory is just around the corner, even without knowledge of the FBI’s verdict.
At the end of the day, Americans everywhere will realize that the rule of law applies to Hillary Clinton, and that honesty and integrity will propel Bernie Sanders to the presidency. The FBI’s reputation is at stake, both globally and at home, and I explain why in this YouTube segment. James Comey and the agents who’ve devoted endless hours to Clinton’s email investigation will soon disclose their findings to the American people; to think nothing will result from this year-long probe is naive. Remember, the FBI doesn’t give parking tickets.
There will indeed be political repercussions for Clinton, especially if the FBI recommends indictment, and Democrats will need Bernie Sanders. The DNC will need Bernie Sanders. The country will need Bernie Sanders.
We haven’t veered that far away from our former value system as nation, when possible criminal conduct meant the end of presidential campaigns, for the DNC to continue to back Hillary Clinton, even after the FBI recommends indictments.
Think I’m nuts?
The smartest people in the room are again saying that Bernie Sanders can’t win, even though they failed to predict he’d be only 1.4 points nationally from Clinton in April of 2016. Last year, I accurately predicted that Bernie Sanders would continue his surge in the polls, while most observers never imagined Vermont’s Senator already defeating Clinton in two national polls. Not long ago, there was the notion that party unity would save Democrats in November, if Clinton became the nominee. Again, I predicted that many Democrats would never support Hillary Clinton, and that figure is now much larger. The smart Democratic strategists also never imagined Bernie Sanders would have 1,149 delegates, even after New York, and certainly never predicted he’d defeat GOP competition by wider margins than Hillary Clinton. Once again, in almost all my writing advocating Bernie Sanders, I’ve made the case that Sanders would be here, at this point, and perform better against Republican challengers.
Most importantly, nobody in progressive politics took the FBI investigation seriously, even though I’ve addressed the issue since last year, before supporting Bernie and while I was backing Elizabeth Warren. For this reason, and not delegate math (that discounts the over 100,000 voters in Brooklyn who weren’t allowed to vote), there’s only one genuine front-runner in the race for Democratic nominee. You can’t start bringing up rules and delegate count, if voter suppression, rigged debates schedules, and overt foul play have been hallmarks of the 2016 Democratic Primary.
Bernie Sanders will remain the true Democratic front-runner, until the FBI finishes its year-long investigation of the Top Secret and classified intelligence found on Clinton’s private server. This concept is simple, but very difficult for Clinton supporters, and even many observers in the media to comprehend. To most supporters of the former Secretary of State, everything is a Benghazi committee, regardless of the severity of the controversy or questions surrounding Clinton’s decision-making.
First, the Clinton campaign would like nothing more than Bernie Sanders dropping out, and becoming the only candidate standing if the FBI recommends indictments for Clinton or her top aides. The narrative then would be that Democrats had to vote for Clinton, since there was nobody left standing other than the former Secretary of State. Luckily, Bernie Sanders has more than enough money to see this election through; all the way to the FBI’s vote.
Of course, the Hillary faithful can’t even fathom indictment, but it’s a real possibility; in fact, a likely repercussion the more you know about the email investigation. I
It’s not often that a political figure is both investigated by the FBI, and seen as qualified by voters; yet another bizarre aspect of Clinton’s 2016 quest for the White House.
More important than anything I have to say on the topic, Lt. General Michael Flynn has a profound viewpoint. Speaking to Jake Tapper on CNN, President Obama’s former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency makes the case for Hillary Clinton to “drop out” of the 2016 race:
Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama’s former top military intelligence official said Hillary Clinton should pull out of the presidential race while the FBI investigate her use of a private email server for official government communication while secretary of state.
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the retired chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, made the call in an interview with Jake Tapper on “The Lead.”
“If it were me, I would have been out the door and probably in jail,” said Flynn, who decried what he said was a “lack of accountability, frankly, in a person who should have been much more responsible in her actions as the secretary of state of the United States of America.”
“This over-classification excuse is not an excuse,” Flynn said Friday. “If it’s classified, it’s classified.”
…Flynn, who headed the Defense Intelligence Agency from July 2012 to August 2014, told Tapper that Clinton “knew better” given the roles that she has had as a senator, a secretary of state, “even back when she was married to the president of the United States, she was going to have privileged information in that regard.”
Therefore, who’s wrong? Lt. General Michael Flynn, or the Clinton campaign?
I’ll side with Lt. General Michael Flynn.
On the completely opposite end of the spectrum, pertaining to the intelligence community, both Obama’s former intelligence chief and Edward Snowden agree on Clinton’s email situation. Quoted in The Guardian, Snowden makes a similar case:
Snowden said in Al-Jazeera interview that ordinary government workers would ‘very likely face prosecution’ for sending classified emails over personal server…
Edward Snowden has branded as “completely ridiculous” the idea that Hillary Clinton’s personal email server was secure while she was secretary of state…
“This is a problem,” Snowden said, “because anyone who has the clearances that the secretary of state has, or the director of any top-level agency has, knows how classified information should be handled.”
He added: “If an ordinary worker at the State Department or the CIA … were sending details about the security of embassies, which is alleged to be in her email, meetings with private government officials, foreign government officials and the statements that were made to them in confidence over unclassified email systems, they would not only lose their jobs and lose their clearance, they would very likely face prosecution for it.”
Both Snowden and Flynn stated that they’d be in jail if they had acted like Hillary Clinton.
Again, two people on opposite ends of the political spectrum, who are experts on classified intelligence, state the same thing pertaining to the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s emails.
Yes, America needs Bernie Sanders to stay in the race. Vermont’s Senator will win the Democratic nomination, primarily because his competitor can’t even type an email without scandal. It will be interesting to see the nationwide media frenzy once this story hits.
Wait a minute... I thought it was a security review, not an actual to god FBI investigation.
As aside... to put things in context... Bernie Sanders has more primary votes than frontrunner Trump. Caveats galore is that, yeah, Trump had to deal with a loaded GOP field.... but still man.
It looks to me like Trump has roughly one million more than Sanders in the popular vote and Clinton has three million more than Trump. What is the point with that stat? Clinton is the most popular candidate running right now. There's your context.
You know, you could also realize that Hillary is a somewhat liberal democrat that generally represents the overall party.
The reason left wing media doesn't care as much for Hillary is because there's a real far left candidate.
The right wing is just so accustomed to treating anybody left of Chris Christie as super-Lenin they have no ability to see nuance.
Not that the left is all that much better. I have one college friend who claims he'd never vote for Hilary because "I don't vote republican."
This is one candidate that's seen both as too conservative to be a dem by some, and a liberal-fascist by others. Crazy.
Meanwhile, a silent plurality just want a president that looks like she could strangle a puppy without breaking eye contact. But will at least appoint liberal judges.
Meanwhile, a silent plurality just want a president that looks like she could strangle a puppy without breaking eye contact. But will at least appoint liberal judges.
Well, then I think Clinton is totally your woman then. Wait. Wasn't that a scene in the first season of House of Thrones? Or was it the Apprentice? Or was it Game of Cards? My fictions are getting all mixed up and invading my realities.
Unsurprisingly, Republicans think this is a co-ordinated effort to help HRC get into the White House, as the majority of these felons are African Americans. To his credit, Rand Paul backs it.
Personally, I think it's right to have voting rights back if you've repaid your debt to society.
Unsurprisingly, Republicans think this is a co-ordinated effort to help HRC get into the White House, as the majority of these felons are African Americans. To his credit, Rand Paul backs it.
Personally, I think it's right to have voting rights back if you've repaid your debt to society.
It's not that leap of logic to suggest that this helps pad the Democrat votes. However, remains to be seen that "ex felons" are motivated to vote as a bloc...
Regardless, I applaud this decision...if you paid your dues (incarceration/probations), then your rights *should* snap back to you, end of story.
Unsurprisingly, Republicans think this is a co-ordinated effort to help HRC get into the White House, as the majority of these felons are African Americans. To his credit, Rand Paul backs it.
Personally, I think it's right to have voting rights back if you've repaid your debt to society.
It's not that leap of logic to suggest that this helps pad the Democrat votes. However, remains to be seen that "ex felons" are motivated to vote as a bloc...
Regardless, I applaud this decision...if you paid your dues (incarceration/probations), then your rights *should* snap back to you, end of story.
Let's be honest Whembley: do you think Reagan would have been worried at the D's getting a few hundred thousand votes from this?
A confident and capable Republican candidate, with a clear message and vision for the nation, would barely blink twice at this news.
The Republican reaction tells me they haven't got the heart for the fight. And who can blame them considering their candidates!
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT:
I concede the point to you, Whembley - you were right.
A quick check of Wikipedia tells me that in 2012, Obama was the first D to win Virginia since FDR and that 200,000 votes could make one hell of a difference because the winning margin between Obama and Mitt Romney was roughly 130,000 votes...
Maybe the Republicans are right
Still, if you've paid your debt, you should get your voting rights back.
I concede the point to you, Whembley - you were right.
A quick check of Wikipedia tells me that in 2012, Obama was the first D to win Virginia since FDR and that 200,000 votes could make one hell of a difference because the winning margin between Obama and Mitt Romney was roughly 130,000 votes...
Maybe the Republicans are right
Still, if you've paid your debt, you should get your voting rights back.
Still, state rights and all that, yeah? So the republicans can grumble all they want but shouldn't actually do anything against it.
If they didn't want it to happen then they should have won the Virginia state elections or whatever they are
Compel wrote: All I could think was that there was a big stink in the UK relatively recently about prisoners not being able to vote while they were in prison...
I don't believe that any prisoner should be able to vote and I believe the ECJ or ECHR ruled in the UK's favour on this issue.
But once you've done your time, you should get all your rights back IMHO.
Yes, and it should be an automatic process. The only time it makes sense to me in any way to have your voting rights rescinded is if your were convicted of election fraud or something similar, and even then it's a pretty weak sell to me.
Yes, and it should be an automatic process. The only time it makes sense to me in any way to have your voting rights rescinded is if your were convicted of election fraud or something similar, and even then it's a pretty weak sell to me.
Just out of curiosity, do you think they should also get 2nd amendment rights restored? Maybe with a similar caveat (if they committed some crime while armed with a gun, no restoration)?
Not trying to play any games, I'm genuinely curious.
Spoiler:
Personally, I think under almost all conditions all rights should be restored.
Dakka had a thread about gun rights for ex-cons and I specifically remember it because it was one of the few DakkaDakka OT threads on guns where everyone was of universal agreement (that time served is served and further restrictions were wrong).
Yes, and it should be an automatic process. The only time it makes sense to me in any way to have your voting rights rescinded is if your were convicted of election fraud or something similar, and even then it's a pretty weak sell to me.
Just out of curiosity, do you think they should also get 2nd amendment rights restored? Maybe with a similar caveat (if they committed some crime while armed with a gun, no restoration)?
Not trying to play any games, I'm genuinely curious.
Spoiler:
Personally, I think under almost all conditions all rights should be restored.
2nd amendment rights will require a bit more complexity in gauging whether the right should be restored. You can't directly kill someone with a vote in an election, so having a history of violence should not prevent you from being able to participate in that process.
Getting a gun though? I personally would be hesitant to give that right back to someone convicted of a violent crime, especially if that crime did involve firearms. Maybe after a long probationary period after release, if they have kept to the rules of the probation and have acquired steady work and are in a stable environment it should be considered.
CptJake wrote: [Just out of curiosity, do you think they should also get 2nd amendment rights restored? Maybe with a similar caveat (if they committed some crime while armed with a gun, no restoration)?
Not trying to play any games, I'm genuinely curious.
Yes, but the caveat described is a much easier sell to me. I'd be much more inclined to see the sense in not allowing someone who committed armed robbery or suchlike to legally own firearms. Otherwise, the completion of your sentence should be the end of your punishment.
And before you or someone asks, yes, I believe that applies to most sex offenders too. If you're too dangerous to the public to allow you to be released, then you should not be released, but if it's appropriate for you to be released, you should be free. No half measures, much less this nonsense about you having a scarlet letter for life that makes it much harder for you to ever re-enter society in a meaningful way, thereby vastly increasing the chances you re-offend.
Yes, and it should be an automatic process. The only time it makes sense to me in any way to have your voting rights rescinded is if your were convicted of election fraud or something similar, and even then it's a pretty weak sell to me.
Just out of curiosity, do you think they should also get 2nd amendment rights restored? Maybe with a similar caveat (if they committed some crime while armed with a gun, no restoration)?
Not trying to play any games, I'm genuinely curious.
Spoiler:
Personally, I think under almost all conditions all rights should be restored.
For non violent crimes? Definitely. Dunno for violent crimes though, maybe a system to asses whether they are still likely to commit?
CptJake wrote: [Just out of curiosity, do you think they should also get 2nd amendment rights restored? Maybe with a similar caveat (if they committed some crime while armed with a gun, no restoration)?
Not trying to play any games, I'm genuinely curious.
Yes, but the caveat described is a much easier sell to me. I'd be much more inclined to see the sense in not allowing someone who committed armed robbery or suchlike to legally own firearms. Otherwise, the completion of your sentence should be the end of your punishment.
And before you or someone asks, yes, I believe that applies to most sex offenders too. If you're too dangerous to the public to allow you to be released, then you should not be released, but if it's appropriate for you to be released, you should be free. No half measures, much less this nonsense about you having a scarlet letter for life that makes it much harder for you to ever re-enter society in a meaningful way, thereby vastly increasing the chances you re-offend.
Especially for non-forceful, non-manipulative stuff. Stuff like one side of a relationship coming of age before the other.
LordofHats wrote: Dakka had a thread about gun rights for ex-cons and I specifically remember it because it was one of the few DakkaDakka OT threads on guns where everyone was of universal agreement (that time served is served and further restrictions were wrong).
Yup. Either;
a) That person is a continuing danger to society, and should be detained until they may be reintegrated
b) That person is not a continuing danger to society, and should have all their rights restored
Meanwhile, in Britain, President Obama has been playing some golf, watched Hamlet at the Globe Theatre, and enjoyed a cheese and wine lunch at a top London restaurant!
Can you guys remind me why you elect people President?
Sounds like a 4 year holiday to me!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: I think it's interesting that nearly any effort to expand suffrage or make it easier to vote is seen as a ploy to help democrats.
I think the Republicans can no longer count on their base turning out en masse as in previous years, and given how close the Virginia result was in 2012, extra votes will make a difference, assuming every convicted felon allowed to vote, is a Democrat.
Yes, and it should be an automatic process. The only time it makes sense to me in any way to have your voting rights rescinded is if your were convicted of election fraud or something similar, and even then it's a pretty weak sell to me.
Just out of curiosity, do you think they should also get 2nd amendment rights restored? Maybe with a similar caveat (if they committed some crime while armed with a gun, no restoration)?
Not trying to play any games, I'm genuinely curious.
Spoiler:
Personally, I think under almost all conditions all rights should be restored.
I read that a lot of ex-confederates got their rights back after the Civil War, despite them being traitors to the Union, so there is historical precedence for giving people back full rights, despite them committing serious crimes or treasonous acts.
Yes, and it should be an automatic process. The only time it makes sense to me in any way to have your voting rights rescinded is if your were convicted of election fraud or something similar, and even then it's a pretty weak sell to me.
I know he was pardoned but Nixon seemed to rehabilitate himself pretty well, and he did some pretty bad gak.
OR... it could simply McAuliffe ensuring that Clinton and her Sec of State staff could still vote in November.
Yeah, I don't know how you can make that argument with a straight face. Clinton isn't a Virginia resident and, while much of her staff probably are, it is highly unlikely a significant number would ever be indicted.
There are probably some few felonies that could allow restoration of firearm ownership....but in general...I agree with the suspension of their 2nd amendment right if convicted of felonies.
Does it stop many of them from getting guns? Certainly not.
TheMeanDM wrote: There are probably some few felonies that could allow restoration of firearm ownership....but in general...I agree with the suspension of their 2nd amendment right if convicted of felonies.
Does it stop many of them from getting guns? Certainly not.
As I said earlier, people like Robert E Lee got off with a slap to the wrist for doing arguably more damage to America, so IMO, even if somebody has had convictions for firearm offences, they should get their full 2nd amendment rights restored.
Look, I could be horribly wrong here because my American gun law knowledge is non-existent, but doesn't firearm offences cover more than shooting people?
Fraudulent paperwork? False gun registration, transporting guns to different states, making your own guns etc etc
Late on Thursday, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed a bill that fully bans abortion in the state.
Oklahoma's SB 1552 passed by a 59-9 vote in the heavily Republican legislature. The law is now on the desk of the state's Republican governor, Mary Fallin, who has yet to address whether she plans to sign the legislation into law. If she does, the state could face one of the most intense federal legal battles on the issue.
The controversial Oklahoma bill manages to sideline abortion services by revoking the medical licenses of any doctor found performing the procedure for any other reason than in cases of miscarriage or severe physical trauma to the fetus or pregnant woman.
Doctors who do perform abortions outside this spectrum may face felony charges.
The prohibition includes abortions required to save the life of a pregnant woman; however, inducing an early birth to save the life of a fetus would be legal.
From the text of SB 1552:
Performance of an abortion as defined by Section 1-730 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, to remove an ectopic pregnancy, or to remove a dead unborn child who died as the result of a spontaneous miscarriage, accidental trauma, or a criminal assault on the pregnant female or her unborn child.
The bill's text mandates that the State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision, State Board of Osteopathic Examiners, and State Board of Health all comply with the license revocations.
Any physician participating in the performance of an abortion shall be prohibited from obtaining or renewing a license to practice medicine in this state. The State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision shall revoke the license of an allopathic physician performing an abortion in this state. The State Board of Osteopathic Examiners shall revoke the license of an osteopathic physician performing an abortion in this state.
The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade and subsequent abortion cases have found that women in the U.S. have a constitutional right to privacy with regards to their medical choices, including abortion.
According to Reuters, statements made by legislators during Thursday night's deliberations largely focused on morality and betrayed a devil-may-care attitude about the potential federal battle that is likely to ensue if Fallin signs the bill into law.
“I’ve heard almost every argument today about judicial challenge to this legislation, and after much prayer and study, I ask myself this question,” Rep. David Brumbaugh (R) said on Thursday, according to TPM. “Do we make laws because they're moral and right, or do we make them based on what an unelected judicial occupant might question or overturn?”
“If we take care of morality,” Brumbaugh added, according to Reuters, “God will take care of the economy.”
The Center for Reproductive Rights urged Fallin not to sign the bill into law. Amanda Allen, CRR's senior state legislative counsel, told the Daily Dot in a statement via email that the total abortion ban was “cruel and unconstitutional.”
“Oklahoma politicians have made it their mission year after year to restrict women’s access vital health care services, yet this total ban on abortion is a new low,” said Allen. “When abortion is illegal, women and their health, futures, and families suffer.”
CRR told the Daily Dot in an email that Oklahoma currently has only two abortion providers. CRR has filed eight lawsuits against Oklahoma state abortion restrictions in the past five years alone.
Yamani Hernandez, executive director of National Network of Abortion Funds, further condemned the bill as “uniquely sinister” and “playing politics” with vulnerable Americans.
“SB 1552 violates the constitutional rights of people needing an abortion. Its playing politics with the the most vulnerable people and families,” Hernandez said in an email to the Daily Dot. “Setting up a situation where people can't get the care they need, and then punishes people for attempting to provide their own care, is uniquely sinister.”
On Tuesday, prior to the House passage of SB 1552, the Oklahoma Senate voted in favor of another law restricting abortion. The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2016 passed by 39-6 after being approval in the House. It would ban abortions performed on fetuses with Down Syndrome or other genetic abnormalities. The legislation would also revoke the medical licenses of doctors who perform procedures on these fetuses.
If signed by Fallin, the law would make Oklahoma the third state in the country, including North Dakota and Indiana, to ban abortions on fetuses with Down Syndrome and other disabilities.
Correction: If SB 1552 passes, doctors who perform abortions could face felony charges.
Always good to see peoples freedoms being restricted because of "morals" and other such bullgak.
I can't imagine the people of Oklahoma are excited that their tax money is about to get wasted in a losing defense of a stupid law, which was probably known that it wouldn't be able to stand up to a challenge when it was passed.
The people in Oklahoma are currently facing the reality of getting another 100,000 people kicked off Medicaid, slashing Medicaid rates again, children going hungry, schools having to switch to 4 day weeks, prisons being severely understaffed, DHS cutting staff, and public agencies shutting down. The entire state has had a 14% budget cut across all agencies after two years of revenue failures in a row. We have just over a month left in the legislative session, and we have not seen any movement on any bill that would do anything to address the fact that our state is broke as feth because the legislators have already admitted that they don't want to do anything related to budget until they know who will be running against them in the elections this year. Because their own political agenda is more important than any of the people in this state.
But we did find the time to pass legislation on open carry for everyone without any licensing requirements and to pass legislation that will cost the state even more money to defend in court yet another year because our legislators are dumber than a sack of rocks.
d-usa wrote: The people in Oklahoma are currently facing the reality of getting another 100,000 people kicked off Medicaid, slashing Medicaid rates again, children going hungry, schools having to switch to 4 day weeks, prisons being severely understaffed, DHS cutting staff, and public agencies shutting down. The entire state has had a 14% budget cut across all agencies after two years of revenue failures in a row. We have just over a month left in the legislative session, and we have not seen any movement on any bill that would do anything to address the fact that our state is broke as feth because the legislators have already admitted that they don't want to do anything related to budget until they know who will be running against them in the elections this year. Because their own political agenda is more important than any of the people in this state.
But we did find the time to pass legislation on open carry for everyone without any licensing requirements and to pass legislation that will cost the state even more money to defend in court yet another year because our legislators are dumber than a sack of rocks.
Our legislature is a cancer, and it's killing us.
Hey man, at least you guys have a budget. Illinois hasn't had one since July 1st of last year. Everybody talks about how states rights are sacred and they need more power. I am just sitting over here like "Man, I hope the feds declare Illinois a state of emergency and come save us from this idiot named Rauner."
d-usa wrote: The people in Oklahoma are currently facing the reality of getting another 100,000 people kicked off Medicaid, slashing Medicaid rates again, children going hungry, schools having to switch to 4 day weeks, prisons being severely understaffed, DHS cutting staff, and public agencies shutting down. The entire state has had a 14% budget cut across all agencies after two years of revenue failures in a row. We have just over a month left in the legislative session, and we have not seen any movement on any bill that would do anything to address the fact that our state is broke as feth because the legislators have already admitted that they don't want to do anything related to budget until they know who will be running against them in the elections this year. Because their own political agenda is more important than any of the people in this state.
But we did find the time to pass legislation on open carry for everyone without any licensing requirements and to pass legislation that will cost the state even more money to defend in court yet another year because our legislators are dumber than a sack of rocks.
Voter's don't even get to make the choice most of the time in Oklahoma over the last few elections. Many seats only have a single person filing for them, and many more only have multiple people from the same party running for the seat.
This will be the first year in a while that there are a lot of folks running and we will have actual elections.
d-usa wrote: Voter's don't even get to make the choice most of the time in Oklahoma over the last few elections. Many seats only have a single person filing for them, and many more only have multiple people from the same party running for the seat.
This will be the first year in a while that there are a lot of folks running and we will have actual elections.
d-usa wrote: Voter's don't even get to make the choice most of the time in Oklahoma over the last few elections. Many seats only have a single person filing for them, and many more only have multiple people from the same party running for the seat.
This will be the first year in a while that there are a lot of folks running and we will have actual elections.
As opposed to?
The answer is in the quoted text.
But to repeat myself:
Usually there is one person files for the seat and "wins" the seat as soon as the filing period closes, there is no primary ballot and no general election ballot. There is no election, and the seat is won by paying the filing fee. If you are lucky there are two people from the same party filing for the seat and you might have a primary election and you get to participate if you are registered with that party.
But this year there are more people filing for the seats and there will be a primary election and a general election to decide who wins the seat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I think he's saying it's not really an election if only one person is running, or if the only other persons running are from the same party.
Exactly.
And that's not really the fault of the system, mind you, that's the result of apathy over politics at the state level. We would have elections if more people cared enough to run for the seats that are open, instead we have seats that are yours if you pay the fee because nobody else is even interested in it.
d-usa wrote: Voter's don't even get to make the choice most of the time in Oklahoma over the last few elections. Many seats only have a single person filing for them, and many more only have multiple people from the same party running for the seat.
This will be the first year in a while that there are a lot of folks running and we will have actual elections.
As opposed to?
The answer is in the quoted text.
But to repeat myself:
Usually there is one person files for the seat and "wins" the seat as soon as the filing period closes, there is no primary ballot and no general election ballot. There is no election, and the seat is won by paying the filing fee. If you are lucky there are two people from the same party filing for the seat and you might have a primary election and you get to participate if you are registered with that party.
But this year there are more people filing for the seats and there will be a primary election and a general election to decide who wins the seat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I think he's saying it's not really an election if only one person is running, or if the only other persons running are from the same party.
Exactly.
And that's not really the fault of the system, mind you, that's the result of apathy over politics at the state level. We would have elections if more people cared enough to run for the seats that are open, instead we have seats that are yours if you pay the fee because nobody else is even interested in it.
If the voters believe that the only way to participate in the aptly named participatory democratic process is to turn up on a pre-determined day to vote, and then complain after the fact about their limited choices then truly, voters get the government they deserve.
Yeah, if running for office were really as simple as just filling out a form, you might have a point but I assume we're all intelligent enough to know that it's not that simple.
Hey man, at least you guys have a budget. Illinois hasn't had one since July 1st of last year. Everybody talks about how states rights are sacred and they need more power. I am just sitting over here like "Man, I hope the feds declare Illinois a state of emergency and come save us from this idiot named Rauner."
It has gotten to the point where universities that serve constituents who back Rauner are on the verge of laying off even more people.
Hey man, at least you guys have a budget. Illinois hasn't had one since July 1st of last year. Everybody talks about how states rights are sacred and they need more power. I am just sitting over here like "Man, I hope the feds declare Illinois a state of emergency and come save us from this idiot named Rauner."
It has gotten to the point where universities that serve constituents who back Rauner are on the verge of laying off even more people.
Oh I know, I live in Carbondale. SIU is talking about closing for a semester, laying people off, and downgrading to be a college instead of a University.
Ted Cruz lookalike cashes in on internet fame by agreeing to do porn with her boyfriend for $10,000... but says she is hurt by online comments comparing her to Republican candidate
Searcy Hayes, 21, appeared on The Maury Povich Show on Monday
Her striking resemblance to Cruz, 45, caused an internet sensation
She and boyfriend Freddie Green Jr. agreed to film six-minute porn clip
Hayes says she has been hurt by some of the online comments about her
She revealed she would like to meet Cruz one day and would love a trip to the White House should he be elected in November
The mother-of-one is willing to take a DNA test to see if they are related
err.....
... no.
Not ever.
She revealed she would like to meet Cruz one day and would love a trip to the White House should he be elected in November
Billionaires don't support him? The establishment won't cooperate with him? His own party is colluding to undermine him?
It would be hard to write a more American narrative. Pity Trump is in the middle of it, otherwise you could really start to see the appeal.
plastictrees wrote: Billionaires don't support him? The establishment won't cooperate with him? His own party is colluding to undermine him?
It would be hard to write a more American narrative. Pity Trump is in the middle of it, otherwise you could really start to see the appeal.
The longer Trump remains the front runner the more control the Republican Party will assert over his campaign. Trump already has a longtime Party establishment figure as his new campaign manager who's telling the RNC what they want to hear. If Trump is the nominee he'll move his positions closer to the what the Party wants, the Party won't change for Trump.
HOLLYWOOD, Fla. — Donald J. Trump’s newly installed campaign chief sought to assure members of the Republican National Committee on Thursday night that Mr. Trump recognized the need to reshape his persona and that his campaign would begin working with the political establishment that he has scorned to great effect.
Addressing about 100 committee members at the spring meeting here, many of them deeply skeptical about Mr. Trump’s candidacy, the campaign chief, Paul Manafort, bluntly suggested the candidate’s incendiary style amounted to an act.
“That’s what’s important for you to understand: That he gets it, and that the part he’s been playing is evolving,” Mr. Manafort said, suggesting that Mr. Trump was about to begin a more professional phase of his campaign.
“The negatives are going to come down, the image is going to change, but Clinton is still going to be crooked Hillary,” he added.
Mr. Manafort’s comments, which included a PowerPoint presentation, came during a happy-hour reception at the beachside hotel resort here. They were made behind closed doors, which were guarded by security. But a person in attendance taped the speech and shared the recording with The New York Times.
Mr. Manafort, a longtime Republican strategist and lobbyist who in recent weeks has taken over control of much of the organization from Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, offered an olive branch to the party officials at the start of his remarks.
“Is Donald Trump running against the Republican National Committee?” asked Mr. Manafort, referring to the candidate’s unrelenting assault on what he calls the “crooked” nominating process. “The answer is he is not.”
But Mr. Manafort went further than simply placating committee members: He also openly said that Mr. Trump wanted to coordinate with the very forces he has spent much of his campaign attacking.
“He gave us the mandate to bring together a team of professionals that could finish the job for him, but could also then begin to link in with the establishment institutions that are part of our party, what you represent, what the state parties represent,” he said, also alluding to think tanks and members of Congress. “We’ve started all those conversations,” said Manafort, adding of Mr. Trump, “He cares about the united team.”
In Indiana I have been seeing (comparatively) lots of Cruz signs and bumper stickers. Cruz was on the cover of the State newspaper the other day as well. There was an article about Trump but no pictures.
On the other side I have seen lots of Bernie signs/bumper stickers but not many for Hillary, if any.
CptJake wrote: Isn't announcing a VP pick before the convention while there is no clear nominee a bit unusual?
This was my thoughts, too.
I mean, what happens if he does pick Fiorina and she's like "Yeah!" but then Cruz doesn't get the nomination? Won't that make both of them look remarkably stupid?
Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, mind you...
LordofHats wrote: Yeah, if running for office were really as simple as just filling out a form, you might have a point but I assume we're all intelligent enough to know that it's not that simple.
You're right. Much simpler to complain about it than do anything meaningful.
Something something voters getting the government they deserve.
You're right. Much simpler to complain about it than do anything meaningful.
What? You expect D-USA to drop everything and run for office? I can't point out that running for office is really time consuming, and expensive, and it's not like just anyone can do it unless I drop everything else in life and go get out the vote? It's a strange line of reasoning you're operating on. Maybe instead of complaining about complainers you should go do something about all the complaints.
Ustrello wrote: I think D-usa was part of some government body at some point down there. Correct me if I am wrong
Not good enough. He's not improving the selection of candidates, and that makes him part of the problem! All of you better go out and run for office, cause I don't want to hear any complaining about how the candidates suck cause you're not running!
I was state chair of one of the third parties for a few years and we spend a lot of time and effort working with the other third parties to change the laws in Oklahoma to improve ballot access for third parties and make more elected offices non-partisan, with some success. I am also active at the state level for my professional organization while serving on the governmental activities committee lobbying at the state legislature. For the last 8 years the Hatch Act bars me from running for partisan offices.
I'm comfortable with my level of involvement in state politics, and I don't feel an ounce of guilt or shame for pointing out that elections are actually elections when more people run for offices, and I don't feel bad about complaining when races are decided at the end of the filing deadline.
You know, there’s no guarantee of it, but it seems a pretty good rule of thumb, that any Democrat who manages to piss of the idiots at Salon and HuffPo is probably a pretty candidate.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Cruz and Kasich are dividing the remaining states between them in an attempt to block Trump.
These guys started talking about this about after Super Tuesday, in that distant time when we all kept expecting Rubio to stop sucking any minute now. That deal fell apart, though, and after Rubio dropped out it pretty much disappeared completely. Now it’s back, and is almost a formal agreement.
At a guess, I’d say the reason it fell over was over who got the nomination once Trump was defeated. Kasich was always planning to hang in until the convention then score a miracle flood of delegates. Cruz would have thought the nomination should go to him, because the reality is this contest is Trump first, Cruz second, and nobody in third place - conventions are crazy places but not so crazy that they’d give the nomination to a guy who’s won nothing but his home state, and about 14% of the vote.
So I’m guessing Kasich has finally conceded that reality, and it’ll be a Cruz/Kasich ticket if they get over Trump.
Megyn Kelly has landed a big interview with Donald Trump after the warring pair agreed to end their feud.
Trump will sit for an in-depth interview on Kelly’s special, which airs on Fox on May 17, a source confirmed to Page Six.
The move comes after the pair met for a summit at Trump Tower to make their peace.
The Fox News anchor secretly spent an hour with the Republican presidential candidate on April 13 at the Trump Tower, where they discussed him appearing with her on a TV special.
“Kelly requested a meeting with Mr. Trump, which took place at Trump Tower this morning . . . Kelly has acknowledged in recent interviews that Trump is a fascinating person to cover and has electrified the Republican base,” a Fox rep said in a statement at the time.
Later on the “The Kelly File,” the host said, “Mr. Trump and I discussed the possibility of an interview, and I hope we will have news to announce on that soon.”
Kelly said the meeting was “at my request, and Mr. Trump was gracious enough to agree to it. We met for about an hour, just the two of us, and I had a chance to clear the air.”
“In case you were wondering,” she added. “Yes, the doormen appeared a bit stunned when I walked in. And they, too, were incredibly gracious. Stay tuned.”
The feud erupted last year after Kelly grilled Trump during the first GOP presidential debate about his tasteless comments regarding women.
“You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs’ and ‘disgusting animals,'” Kelly said. “Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president?”
The tough questioning caught Trump off guard. “Honestly, Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry . . . I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably not be, based on the way you have treated me,” he shot back.
The sniping continued into this year, when Trump backed out of a Fox-sponsored debate in Iowa that Kelly was moderating days before the state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses. Trump finished second to Ted Cruz in the Iowa contests.
Now Kelly will get to grill Trump one-on-one, and sources say that despite their apparent truce, nothing will be off limits.
So, here is a little tit for tat in the world of stupid celebrities.
Hollywood Reporter wrote:However, if Donald Trump wins the election, she plans to move to Canada. "I know a lot of people have been threatening to do this, but I really will," Dunham told Cohen. "I know a lovely place in Vancouver and I can get my work done from there."
So, I guess this goes into the "pro Trump" column then?
Politico wrote:Not only would Donald Trump not mind if certain celebrities flee the United States upon his election, the Republican front-runner said Tuesday that their opposition to his candidacy only increases his will to win.
During a telephone interview with "Fox & Friends," Trump was asked about a tweet from Lena Dunham on Monday in which she vowed to leave the U.S. for Vancouver if he is elected president.
Trump's response: "Well, she's a B-actor. You know, she has no — you know, no mojo."
"I heard Whoopi Goldberg too. That would be a great thing for our country," Trump said, as the show flashed a graphic of celebrities who it said would leave the U.S. for Canada, including Dunham, Jon Stewart, and Rosie O'Donnell, with whom the Manhattan real-estate mogul has feuded for years.
When co-host Steve Doocy pointed out that O'Donnell's name on the list, Trump remarked, "Now I have to get elected."
"Now I have to get elected because I'll be doing a great service to our country," he said. "Now it's much more important. In fact, I'll immediately get off this call and start campaigning right now."
Heck, I'm almost ready to vote for Trump now just to see these people leave.
I don't like the idea of a President Trump but you have to hand it to the man: he can bring the bantz like no other. Lena Dunham, Whoopie Goldberg and friends btfo.
Sanders has effectively been over for a while; the question is when he starts consolidation. Interestingly, it looks like Trump is making jabs about Bernie being mistreated, no doubt hoping to prolong that fight.
Kasich is not playing a very effective spoiler, and I think this team up think is going to backfire and cut him out of PA. Cruz doesn't play well in any of the upcoming states and seems increasingly desperate. With Trump now hitting 50% Repub support, it looks like he may finally be gaining some success in a majority coalition. Given that a lot of Republicans seem to want this circus show over one way or another and tend to favor whoever gets the most votes over any other factor, that could be a strong push for uncommitted delegates to vote Trump. Or they might still be angry about Trump not caring enough about bathrooms. Who knows?
To be fair, Trump has more than the most votes, he also has the most committed delegates. Not a majority, but a very clear plurality.
Indiana seems to be the big test. If he can grab the majority there he'll still be on track to hit the magic number if everything goes well for him. If Cruz can stop him there it will probably go to a contested/open/whatever the right term is convention.
Not a trump fan, however, giving what you get is appropriate.
He's also right in this circumstance. Canada better start building a wall. Make California pay for it.
Idiots threatening to leave the country if someone they don't like wins an election? Why this is unheard of and the Trumpster is right, and Presidential, in responding to it.
Not a trump fan, however, giving what you get is appropriate.
He's also right in this circumstance. Canada better start building a wall. Make California pay for it.
Make Texas pay for it, they dont want to be a part of the US anyways with all the secessionist grumblings again.
California actually makes this country money and hasnt shown up in the news with embarrassing policies lately.
Ahtman wrote: Idiots threatening to leave the country if someone they don't like wins an election? Why this is unheard of and the Trumpster is right, and Presidential, in responding to it.
Not unheard of at all. It happened when Bush ran for his second term and I'm sure you can find examples of folks saying they would leave if Obama won a second term.
Ahtman wrote: Idiots threatening to leave the country if someone they don't like wins an election? Why this is unheard of and the Trumpster is right, and Presidential, in responding to it.
Not unheard of at all. It happened when Bush ran for his second term and I'm sure you can find examples of folks saying they would leave if Obama won a second term.
I suspect Ahtman was being sarcastic. I definitely remember people threatening to leave if Bush Jr got a second term, but not Obama. Threatening to leave may be a leftist tactic.
What's different this time around is only Drumpf has been thin-skinned enough to respond to the empty threats of political nobodies.
Not a trump fan, however, giving what you get is appropriate.
He's also right in this circumstance. Canada better start building a wall. Make California pay for it.
Make Texas pay for it, they dont want to be a part of the US anyways with all the secessionist grumblings again.
California actually makes this country money and hasnt shown up in the news with embarrassing policies lately.
Make Texas pay for it and we'll just make Canada part of Texas.
Maple flavored TexMex, its the Eighth Sign of the Wienergeddon!
Not a trump fan, however, giving what you get is appropriate.
He's also right in this circumstance. Canada better start building a wall. Make California pay for it.
Make Texas pay for it, they dont want to be a part of the US anyways with all the secessionist grumblings again.
California actually makes this country money and hasnt shown up in the news with embarrassing policies lately.
Make Texas pay for it and we'll just make Canada part of Texas.
Maple flavored TexMex, its the Eighth Sign of the Wienergeddon!
Sure, you've got six shooters but can you fight on skates?
You're right. Much simpler to complain about it than do anything meaningful.
What? You expect D-USA to drop everything and run for office? I can't point out that running for office is really time consuming, and expensive, and it's not like just anyone can do it unless I drop everything else in life and go get out the vote? It's a strange line of reasoning you're operating on. Maybe instead of complaining about complainers you should go do something about all the complaints.
You could try reading what was said first, otherwise...
Breotan wrote: So, here is a little tit for tat in the world of stupid celebrities.
Hollywood Reporter wrote:However, if Donald Trump wins the election, she plans to move to Canada. "I know a lot of people have been threatening to do this, but I really will," Dunham told Cohen. "I know a lovely place in Vancouver and I can get my work done from there."
So, I guess this goes into the "pro Trump" column then?
Maybe her sister will be safe from her there allegedly of course
You could try reading what was said first, otherwise...
I did. If you meant something other than what was implied, feel free to elaborate.
Until then I'm going to have to ask you to fill out this form listing all political activities you've participated in for the last five years. Be warned that leaving this form blank will result in me adding nothing to a conversation, but vague whining about how you're the problem. If you're not participated in the electoral process, you aren't allowed to offer an opinion on it, and even if you have I'll probably still just keep going on this triad because I've got nothing constructive to say.
Honestly. We've read what you said. Somehow you've just missed how absurd what you say is.
Ahtman wrote: Idiots threatening to leave the country if someone they don't like wins an election? Why this is unheard of and the Trumpster is right, and Presidential, in responding to it.
Not unheard of at all. It happened when Bush ran for his second term and I'm sure you can find examples of folks saying they would leave if Obama won a second term.
I suspect Ahtman was being sarcastic. I definitely remember people threatening to leave if Bush Jr got a second term, but not Obama. Threatening to leave may be a leftist tactic.
What's different this time around is only Drumpf has been thin-skinned enough to respond to the empty threats of political nobodies.
There was a minor uptick in immigration to Canada from the States after Bush Jr. got reelected. I don't think "tactic" is the right word. I think some people just really feel their country has gone crazy and want to move. I think there would really be a minor surge of immigration northwards if Trump won.
Should be noted that immigration southwards from Canada to the US is always greater than the opposite even during the Bush years.
People keep looking for the point where Clinton has sealed the Democratic primary, but it hasn’t really worked like that. Because of the way the Democratic process works, with preferential voting in every state, you never really get a clear, decisive winner. It’s more like watching the marathon at the Olympics, the winner becomes increasingly obvious over time, and when they finally cross the line everyone at home has long since lost interest and is now watching Badminton or some other nonsense on the alternate channel.
Probably the most interesting story in the Democratic race has been that most of the stories turned out to be nonsense. Despite the pundit chatter about swings back and forth between Clinton and Sanders, there’s been almost zero momentum change. After each set of results we’ve seen talk of ‘Sanders/Clinton won, now that momentum will carry forward in to the next race’, but that momentum never produced anything in subsequent races.
Instead what we’ve seen is each state decided by the basic characteristics of the state. The following is a fairly simple model, it just tracks the % of black voters, the % of Democrats of independents, and whether it’s in the South. The guys at 538 have a similar model and it’s produced similarly accurate predictions of final results. Sanders string of victories before New York said nothing about gaining momentum, it just happened that there was a string of states that suited him all lined up in a row.
There’s a bit of a feel of 2008 and 2012 to the Democratic results – the boffins built their models based on surveys and demographics and quietly went about getting it right almost everytime, and making the pundits and their anecdotes look quite foolish.
But then over in the Republican race, well I don’t think anyone, anywhere has gotten very much right at any point. Pundits and the stats boffins have been pretty badly wrong, pretty consistently. On 538, for instance, Nate Silver spent the whole build up to the primary saying Trump was unlikely to win because his vote had a strong ceiling, and as soon as voters to coalesced around someone else Trump would be swamped. That didn’t happen, first because a lot of people stayed in the race a long time, and later when people dropped out they didn’t coalesce around an anti-Trump. So 538 changed it’s tune, and said Trump was a strong favourite to win the nomination, except then Trump’s vote did hit a 40% ceiling, and while the remaining vote wasn’t forming behind one person, it looked enough to stop Trump reaching 1,237. But now NY and yesterday’s results have come in, and Trump is well and truly back on track.
Exactly why that race has been so hard to call compared to the Democratic race is a pretty good question. The crowded early field is one explanation – though it’s worth remembering there weren’t that many more candidates in Iowa this election than in the last couple of primaries. I think it’s probably because the more conventional Republican candidates, Rubio and Bush, both fell over pretty badly. The other mainstream candidate, Kasich, is still in the race, not so much because he’s popular but just because he hasn’t quit. In fact, the failure of mainstream Republicans to form around Kasich in any real numbers is probably a hint of what’s really going on.
The Republican party is not a mainstream party anymore. I mean sure, it still commands about half of the total votes in the country, so by the simple definition it’s still mainstream. But it isn’t mainstream in its political beliefs or its behaviour. The Democratic race has seen a ‘good enough’ candidate appeal well enough to the coalition of Democratic voters that she’s been a very strong favourite to win throughout the primary. That’s a pretty ordinary kind of politics. But on the Republican side we’ve seen a guy with wildly fluctuating, utterly ridiculous politics shout down a range of ‘good enough’ candidates, Jindal, Walker, Bush, Rubio, until the only guy left standing is Ted Cruz, who’s from the right wing of the right wing of the right wing of the Republican party. The contest is between people wanting a ‘pure’ conservative, and angry people throwing a protest vote at a ludicrous idiot. That is not ordinary political behaviour. And it’s why the Republican primary has been so hard to predict.
feeder wrote: I suspect Ahtman was being sarcastic. I definitely remember people threatening to leave if Bush Jr got a second term, but not Obama. Threatening to leave may be a leftist tactic.
There was a bunch of Republicans who said they were moving to Canada after Obama won in 2008. But it was mostly just idiots on twitter and facebook, I don’t know if there were any celebrities who did.
The reason you don’t see Republican celebrities say it is probably because;
1) There are hardly any Republican celebrities.
2) If you’re bothered about a left winger winning the presidency, moving to Canada isn’t much of a solution. It’d be a bit like getting annoyed that the zoo is putting in a penguin exhibit, so you move to Antarctica.
Not a trump fan, however, giving what you get is appropriate.
He's also right in this circumstance. Canada better start building a wall. Make California pay for it.
It's not statesmanlike.
Some actress says she will go and live in Canada if Trump get elected. Big deal! Ignore her and deal with something important.
Not a trump fan, however, giving what you get is appropriate. He's also right in this circumstance. Canada better start building a wall. Make California pay for it.
It's not statesmanlike.
Some actress says she will go and live in Canada if Trump get elected. Big deal! Ignore her and deal with something important.
Of course its not statesmanslike. Why do you think a good portion of the US is smacking its head against hard surfaces go "why?....why?...why/"
When the two major parties nominate such horrible, utterly horrible candidates, its time to shut out the lights and call in Colonel Coup. We're done. On the positive now is the time for a Third Party. Vote Wiener Dog in 2016! Join the Pack!
Sebster: 538's Nate Silver seems to have had a personal boas against trump that I think flavored a lot of the early coverage. Trump never really hit a "ceiling" it's just that point of the race included a serious outlier state- Utah. Essentially it was an anomaly in Trump's path and his delegate count has been consistently grinding on a steady path upwards. I agree that the miscalls are largely because this has been an "anti-Establishment" year so the expected frontrunners didn't make it out of the gates. The reporting establishment missed the tone of the race early on and discounted Trump, but were more than happy to play up the horse race later (as in all national elections). But they don't really care about accurate predictions so meh.
One thing that's very interesting about national politics is that it's largely a mix of regional, ethnic/cultural, and economic factions, not the imaginary "liberal/conservative" divide. For example, northeast blue-collar workers tend to pull towards Trump while upper income Southerners do not. The Democrats meanwhile have pretty much locked up the POC blocs, but are struggling to hold a lot of their working class base as they have shifted to more corporatist/business support.
Regardless, the Republican's current anti-immigrant, hostility to POC, pro mega business stance propped up by moralist rhetoric is unsustainable as a winning national platform, though it continues to see strong support in certain regions. I really think a shift back to more worker friendly economic realism would do them wonders. Kicking the moral majority back to the edge would also help and bring them back in line with a minimalist government stance. Strong borders is fine so long as it emphasizes national safety, but too often veers into racist dogma and ignores the huge benefit large companies get from exploiting undocumented workers. The one bright spot the Republicans do have is national defense, but they to get back to emphasizing national defense and away from the neo-conservative interventionism.
For what it's worth, Nate Silver himself has said several times that has poorly predicted Trump's performance. I don't know that I'd call it bias per se, I think he was simply wrong, which isn't unreasonable given how bizarre Trump's success has been.
jasper76 wrote: The Republicans lost national defense as an issue with their epic failure in Iraq.
Yes, but Democrats failed to be able to take that platform with their own missteps and poor communications. How many Americans would you say believe that President Obama pulled troops out of Iraq too early? Or that it was his decision to pull troops out of Iraq at all?
Atop that, you can't denounce the GOP for adventurism with their own antics in Libya and elsewhere.
Iraq would have worked if Obama wouldn't have made the unilateral decision to pull out the troops as early as he did, and refusing to leave troops stationed there after we left.
IME no matter when we pulled out, Iraq was going to plunge into civil war.
In any case, politically, it's a hot pile of steaming poop. The only candidates who want to talk about Iraq are the ones who were vocally against it, because it makes them look wise. Trump and Sanders have both made cheddar on Iraq opposition, and Iraq will always be an albatross hanging around Clinton's neck.
We had a plan for Iraq, but then Obama decided to screw that plan and decided to pull out all troops without leaving behind a security force totally abandoning Iraq even though they wanted out help. Totally his fault.
d-usa wrote: We had a plan for Iraq, but then Obama decided to screw that plan and decided to pull out all troops without leaving behind a security force totally abandoning Iraq even though they wanted out help. Totally his fault.
I suspect if you picked a random sampling of 10 Americans, 6 minimum would agree with this statement. Minimum.
Well, Obama got elected on Iraq withdrawal and got reelected. We shouldn't be too surprised that he did what he said he was going to do.
I've been talking mostly about the decision by the prior administration to go in in the first place, which is the original sin here, as opposed to Obama's fulfillment of his campaign promise to withdraw.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I know you are pokung fun, d-usa,but you might want to stick a in there.
jasper76 wrote: Any missteps the Democratic administration has made in the pursuit of national defense pale in comparison to the epic failure of Iraq.
Libya, Syria, and Iraq II might want to haev a word with you.
However, its irrelevant, both HRC and the Republicans have the same foreign policy plan. WAR.
A lawyer for Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s chief campaign aide, acknowledged Tuesday evening that the longtime GOP operative has been questioned by officials from the Cayman Islands in connection with a $26.2 million investment by a billionaire Russian oligarch who was his partner in an ill-fated telecommunications development in Ukraine. The lawyer’s comments came in response to an earlier story by Yahoo News about the Cayman officials’ efforts to track down Manafort for his testimony.
The dispute goes back years, but last summer, court-appointed liquidators from the Cayman Islands initiated legal action in federal court in Alexandria, Va., seeking to question under oath Manafort and two business partners about a business deal involving firms controlled by Oleg Deripaska, a Russian aluminum magnate who for years was barred from entering the United States over allegations of ties to organized crime.
jasper76 wrote: Any missteps the Democratic administration has made in the pursuit of national defense pale in comparison to the epic failure of Iraq.
Libya, Syria, and Iraq II might want to haev a word with you.
However, its irrelevant, both HRC and the Republicans have the same foreign policy plan. WAR.
I concede the second point, anyway. And Clinton is probably the biggest hawk still running.
jasper76 wrote: Well, Obama got elected on Iraq withdrawal and got reelected. We shouldn't be too surprised that he did what he said he was going to do.
I've been talking mostly about the decision by the prior administration to go in in the first place, which is the original sin here, as opposed to Obama's fulfillment of his campaign promise to withdraw.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I know you are pokung fun, d-usa,but you might want to stick a in there.
Ugh...my sarcasm detector is busted.
I was trying to build on Ouze's statement that the administration, and the Democrstic Party in general, did a horrible job informing the public of what was going on. We had the same discussion here many times. A lot of folks think Obama decided "I'm done with Iraq, no more troops or security forces for you" and then pulled out everybody. The majority are likely unaware that we tried very hard to negotiate an agreement where we keep troops or bases as a security force to help keep things stable and to help with keeping a foothold in the area, and that Iraq told us to shove it and kicked us out completely.
There are plenty of missteps by Obama, but they did not control the message at all in that regard.
jasper76 wrote: Well, Obama got elected on Iraq withdrawal and got reelected. We shouldn't be too surprised that he did what he said he was going to do.
I've been talking mostly about the decision by the prior administration to go in in the first place, which is the original sin here, as opposed to Obama's fulfillment of his campaign promise to withdraw.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I know you are pokung fun, d-usa,but you might want to stick a in there.
Ugh...my sarcasm detector is busted.
I was trying to build on Ouze's statement that the administration, and the Democrstic Party in general, did a horrible job informing the public of what was going on. We had the same discussion here many times. A lot of folks think Obama decided "I'm done with Iraq, no more troops or security forces for you" and then pulled out everybody. The majority are likely unaware that we tried very hard to negotiate an agreement where we keep troops or bases as a security force to help keep things stable and to help with keeping a foothold in the area, and that Iraq told us to shove it and kicked us out completely.
There are plenty of missteps by Obama, but they did not control the message at all in that regard.
This... 1000x. (although, I'll add the US being "shoved" out is mischaracterizing the situation... )
There's a very definite argument that Obama was partially elected to disengage from Iraq and that he was doing what he promised on his campaign trial. However, I don't know if it's a "horrible" messaging that explains the current predicament. It appears that he just "cut his loses" with Iraq...which in his mind, that's exactly what he was elected to do.
I guess the criticism, fairly or not, is that being The President also means leadership. Making the right call, even if it goes against your constituents at the time... goes with the territory as being the President. I firmly believe President Obama failed that miserably.
So, back to the messaging failure... what could have they said? "Hey, you voted for me to get out of Iraq"... thus, implying that it's the voter's fault.
Which isn't untrue... it's just that, voters don't like to be scapegoated and now, the administration is painted into the corner. Then the only other strategy is to simply not talk about what's going on in Iraq.
Would it be more peaceful? Good question.
Would the US still be taking daily casualties? The more important question.
We should look at Afghanistan, were the administration has stretched troop pullback. The Taliban have become resurgent, and suddenly ISIL has appeared there too.
I may be the one conservative who supports Obama on his Iraq strategy, or thinks even this amount is too much.
McCain was all in favor of the Iraq War. I'm not sure what these people have done to gain your trust after supporting such a gargantuan foreign policy blunder.
jasper76 wrote: McCain was all in favor of the Iraq War. I'm not sure what these people have done to gain your trust after supporting a foreign policy blunder the likes of which we have not seen in modern times.
Kilkrazy wrote: If John McCain had been elected in 2008 do you think the USA would still be in Iraq now?
Yes, and things would be much better Foriegn Policy-wise.
I fault McCain alot on his domestic policies... but, I trust a hypothetical McCain Administration waaaaaaay more than Obama's Administration.
Why? He's a "lets bomb/send troops BOOMBOOMBOOM" like the rest. He wanted to get more heavily into Syria and supported the guerillas-some of whom became ISIL. How'd that work out?
Kilkrazy wrote: If John McCain had been elected in 2008 do you think the USA would still be in Iraq now?
Yes, and things would be much better Foriegn Policy-wise.
I fault McCain alot on his domestic policies... but, I trust a hypothetical McCain Administration waaaaaaay more than Obama's Administration.
Why? He's a "lets bomb/send troops BOOMBOOMBOOM" like the rest. He wanted to get more heavily into Syria and supported the guerillas-some of whom became ISIL. How'd that work out?
jasper76 wrote: McCain was all in favor of the Iraq War. I'm not sure what these people have done to gain your trust after supporting a foreign policy blunder the likes of which we have not seen in modern times.
They're not Democrats.
I'm not talking Republican or Democrat. Clinton made the exact same mistake.
There were wiser voices heard at the time. Robert Byrd, especially, but also people like Bernie were there to be heard:
Getting in 400 pages late...First choice was Christy, second was Hilary, and if both failed, I threatened my roommates that I'd vote Trump (they're Sanders supporters).
Voted Hilary yesterday, but in regards to Trump, I honestly believe his view is that "any publicity is good publicity". He's the one in the news. He's the one everybody is paying attention to. Does he believe even half the stuff he's saying? Doubtful. I think he's saying stuff just to get people up in a tizzy. Actually, I'm quite curious how things will turn out if he gets elected. My roommates both plan to leave the country if he's elected (one is from Australia, and she's ready to pack up and go home if this happens, and the other will go with her as they're a couple). I was given an offer to join, but I'd stick around; I want to see if he's got what it takes to be president.
Yes, and with McCain keeping us in Iraq, ISIS never would have happened.
I thought they grew largely out of Syria, not Iraq?
Let me rephrase, they never would have exploded like they did. They would have remained a thorn in the Syrian civil war. Their attack into Iraq, and the subsequent collapse of the Iraqi Army letting them capture a near third of the country almost over night, just wouldn't have happened if we were still there.
Yes, and with McCain keeping us in Iraq, ISIS never would have happened.
I thought they grew largely out of Syria, not Iraq?
Let me rephrase, they never would have exploded like they did. They would have remained a thorn in the Syrian civil war. Their attack into Iraq, and the subsequent collapse of the Iraqi Army letting them capture a near third of the country almost over night, just wouldn't have happened if we were still there.
None of this precludes the possibility that something
similar to (or even worse than) the rise of ISIS might have happened if we withdrew from Iraq later down the line.
Yes, and with McCain keeping us in Iraq, ISIS never would have happened.
I thought they grew largely out of Syria, not Iraq?
Let me rephrase, they never would have exploded like they did. They would have remained a thorn in the Syrian civil war. Their attack into Iraq, and the subsequent collapse of the Iraqi Army letting them capture a near third of the country almost over night, just wouldn't have happened if we were still there.
None of this precludes the possibility that something
similar (or even worse) might have happened if we withdrew from Iraq later down the line.
The odds of it happening would have been startlingly smaller. Mawlaki would have been gone from office, and he wouldn't have been able to decapitate the Iraqi military leadership like he did the moment we left. The Iraqi army would have had more time to train, and possibly stiffen their backs (though there is a lot of debate on this amongst the Soldiers who served their).
We could also always point towards the Obama administations refusal to pick a side in the Syrian civil war, giving ISIS the room to grow to a major power. I can't believe that McCain wouldn't have sat on his thumbs there as well.
Yes, and with McCain keeping us in Iraq, ISIS never would have happened.
I thought they grew largely out of Syria, not Iraq?
Let me rephrase, they never would have exploded like they did. They would have remained a thorn in the Syrian civil war. Their attack into Iraq, and the subsequent collapse of the Iraqi Army letting them capture a near third of the country almost over night, just wouldn't have happened if we were still there.
How many more dead fellow servicemen would there be?
Yes, and with McCain keeping us in Iraq, ISIS never would have happened.
I thought they grew largely out of Syria, not Iraq?
Let me rephrase, they never would have exploded like they did. They would have remained a thorn in the Syrian civil war. Their attack into Iraq, and the subsequent collapse of the Iraqi Army letting them capture a near third of the country almost over night, just wouldn't have happened if we were still there.
How many more dead fellow servicemen would there be?
How many more of us are going to die now going back to clean it up? I'll be there sooner that I would like. A bunch of my coworkers are there right now, fighting a stronger foe than what we left.
Yes, and with McCain keeping us in Iraq, ISIS never would have happened.
I thought they grew largely out of Syria, not Iraq?
Let me rephrase, they never would have exploded like they did. They would have remained a thorn in the Syrian civil war. Their attack into Iraq, and the subsequent collapse of the Iraqi Army letting them capture a near third of the country almost over night, just wouldn't have happened if we were still there.
None of this precludes the possibility that something
similar (or even worse) might have happened if we withdrew from Iraq later down the line.
The odds of it happening would have been startlingly smaller. Mawlaki would have been gone from office, and he wouldn't have been able to decapitate the Iraqi military leadership like he did the moment we left. The Iraqi army would have had more time to train, and possibly stiffen their backs (though there is a lot of debate on this amongst the Soldiers who served their).
We could also always point towards the Obama administations refusal to pick a side in the Syrian civil war, giving ISIS the room to grow to a major power. I can't believe that McCain wouldn't have sat on his thumbs there as well.
I just don't agree. I think civil war was inevitable when Hussein's government was crushed, and it was all just a matter of time before it unfolded. So why should.we have put more American lives and limbs on the line to postpone a civil war?
Most of the conceptual work has been done, and has an inherent appeal that Sanders has capitalised on. What’s needed now is to build lasting grass roots organisations that can be counted on to deliver votes in every election, not just in presidential elections but in every election, especially every primary election.
That's about where the coherency ends, his idea of a flat tax, and then "slashing" taxes for corporate entities is pretty all over the place, but slashing them is definitely a Trickle-down theory, and I am thoroughly against that.
